1920-06-14

[Stage Direction]
Return showing number of persons employed in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, their names and salaries. -Mr. Clark.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Edith Ellen Holmes Austin.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Ethelbert Gilmour Harris.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Albert Ernest Wice-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Peter Sutherland Cowie.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Roy Bradley. -Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Joan Doran. -Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Alexander Ross, Junior.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Jean Mary Sandford.-Mr. Porter.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked with an asterisk.)

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How much was expended by the Department of Justice in connection with the Canadian Northern arbitration proceedings?
2.	Was any money expended on account of tjhe Canadian Northern arbitration proceedings

by any department of the Government outside of the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Justice?
3.	If so, by what departments and how much was so expended?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Department of Justice say that nothing has been expended by that department.
2.	I cannot find from any of the other departments that they have expended any money on this arbitration.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CREDIT ADVANCE TO ROUMANIA.
Mr. EULER:: 1.	When did interest fall due on account of the credit extended by the Canadian Government to Roumania?
2.	Has the Roumanian Government paid such interest?
3.	If not, why not?
4.	What is the amount, if any, of such interest in default?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. No interest yet due by Government of Roumania.
In connection with Roumania a bond for $25,000,000 has been deposited with the Bank of Montreal, London, subject to the order of the Minister of Finance. Each month a statement of the advances, including interest from the date of the advance to the end of the month at 51 per cent is sent forward and the Bank of Montreal endorses on the bond the total amount of such account. When all payments for contracts entered into previous to December 31, 1919, have been made this bond will be exchanged for dollar debentures of the Government of Roumania carrying interest at 51 per cent payable half yearly. These payments are expected to be completed by August 1 and interest will not be due until such exchange has been effected.


INTEREST IN ROUMANIAN ADVANCE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:
1.	Are the interests on the Roumanian bonds given to Canada as guarantee for loans now past due?
2.	Were said interests paid to Canada, and when?
3.	What were the amounts of said interests?
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


ADVANCES TO ROUMANIA AND GREECE.
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Are there any sums of interest coming due during 1919 and since then on the amounts loaned by the Canadian Government to Greece and Roumania?

2.	If so, have these sums heen paid, and on what date?
3.	If not, by which country have they not been paid? And on what date were they due?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1, 2, and 3. No interest payable in 1919.
First payment of interest from Government of Greece due June 30, 1920.-
In connection with Roumania a bond for $25,000,000 has been deposited with the Bank of Montreal, London, subject to the order of the Minister of Finance. Each month a statement of the advances, including interest from the date of the advance to the end of the month at 5| per cent is sent forward and the Bank of Montreal endorses on the bond the total amount of such account.
When all payments for contracts entered into previous to December 31, 1919, have been made this bond will be exchanged for dollar debentures of the Government of Roumania carrying interest at 5J per cent payable half yearly. These payments are expected to be completed by August 1, and interest will not be due until such exchange has been effected.


SUPERANNUATION OF MR. A. D. DECELLES.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What are the reasons put forward by the Hon. the Prime Minister to require the superannuation of Mr. A. D. DeCelles, and replace him by Mr. J. de L. TachS?
2.	What is the salary attached to the position of Librarian of Parliament, and what will be the amount of superannuation to be granted to Mr. DeCelles?


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	The retirement of Mr. A. D. DeCelles, C.M.G., as Parliamentary Librarian, who was appointed in 1880 and who had arrived at the age of 76 years, had been under consideration for some time before it actually took place. Mr. DeCelles was not required to retire and the date of hie superannuation was left to his own good judgment, as it was thoroughly realized that his services as librarian had been conspicuous and worthy in very sense. In the reorganization of the Printing Bureau it was found unnecessary to continue the office of King's Printer in view of the necessity for the appointment of a director with special qualifications of training and experience. As Mr. Tache possessed in an eminent degree the literary and other qualifications for appointment to the office of librarian it was decided to offer him that position which he accepted.
2.	Salary of the Librarian of Parliament, $6,000 per annum.
Superannuation granted to Mr. DeCelles, $3,772.22 per annum.


TAX ON CINEMATOGRAPHIC FILMS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ETH1ER:
What is the amount collected by the Government, by virtue of the Income Tax Act, on cinematographic films during the years 1917, 1918 and 1919, for each year separately.
' Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	I think that
question should be re-framed. It cannot be answered as it now stands because there is no tax placed on cinematographic films under the Income Tax Act. The hon. gentleman could get the information as to the tax that was paid for cinematographic films under the special War Revenue Act.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


LOSS OF GOVERNMENT VOUCHERS AT SEA.
*Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: 1.	With reference to the statement of the Honourable President of the Council, page 3094 unrevised Hansard, that two shiploads of vouchers have been sunk by German submarines, on what dates respectively were the said shiploads sunk?
2.	What are the names of the ships, their tonnage, and also the names of the captains of said ships at the dates on which the sinkings took place?
3.	If these lost vouchers related to expenditures of the Department of Militia and Defence overseas, to which branch of said department did they relate?
4.	Were duplicates preserved?
*5. Have any of these two shiploads of vouchers ever been recovered?
G. Can the Government give an approximate estimate of the total amount of the expenditures covered by the lost vouchers, and if so, what is the amount?
7.	How many tons of vouchers were lost?
8.	If the weight of the lost vouchers is not available, how many cubic feet of space did the boxes or packages containing these vouchers occupy?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Shipments of Chief Paymaster's vouchers were lost in the ss. "Arabic" on 19th August, 1915, and in the " Hesperian" on 7th September, 1915.
2.	Names of ships "Arabic" and "Hesperian,"-the department has no record Of their tonnage or the names of the captains.
3.	The vouchers related to the expenditure made by the Chief Paymaster overseas generally, and not to any particular branch.
4.	Yes.
5.	No-but this was only an inconvenience, as duplicates were retained in England.
6.	$3,000,000.
7 and 8. Not known.

TAX PAID ON INCOMES OVER $100,000. Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):
How many incomes of over $100,OM paid income tax in Canada in the last fiscal year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Individualsforty-eight.


SUPERANNUATION OF CHARLES EUGENE TACHE.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARiCIL:
1.	Has Charles EugSne TachO, District Engineer of the Public Works Department for Bo-naventure and Rimouski, been superannuated?
2.	If so, who replaces him? Is the appointment merely temporary, and does the Government intend to make a permanent appointment?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. Yes.
2 (a) L. G. Trudeau; (b) temporary; (c) matter under consideration.
BRIDGE BETWEEN CAMPBBLL/TON, N.B. AND CROSS POINT, QUE.


Hon. Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a deputation waited upon the Government lately asking for the construction of an interprovincial highway bridge over the Resti-gouche river between Campbellton, N.B., and Cross Point, Quebec?
2.	If so, what answer was given to the application?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1 and 2. Request was made for this work but the reply made was that owing to financial conditions, the Government could not entertain the matter this year.


PROVINCIAL SALARIES AND INDEMNITIES TAXABLE. .
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Are the salaries paid by the provincial governments taxable under the Income Tax Act?
2.	Are the indemnities granted to provincial ministers and members of the legislative assemblies, the salaries paid to sheriffs, protonotaries, registrars and clerks of the courts taxable under the Income Tax Act?
3.	Are the salaries of judges- of all the courts of this country, and also the superannuation allowances granted to said judges, taxable under the Income Tax Act?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes, except the salaries and retiring allowances of judges covered by the Judges Act who were appointed previous to the 8th July, 1919.


PAPER TABLED.
[Stage Direction]
Copy of the surrender of certain Indian lands near Sarnia.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Archambault-For a return showing the names of the societies which have filed copies of policies complying with the provisions of the
Insurance Act, 1K10, Geo. V.. chap. 167, section 115 ; the names of the societies which have neglected to file copies of policies as required by said Act, and to whom licenses have been issued for the current year; and names of any societies from whom licenses have been withheld.

[Stage Direction]
RUMOURED AiPPOINTMENT OF FORMER PRESIDENT TAFT AS GOVERNMENT ABITRATOR.
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: I notice in the press this morning the statement that former President Taft has been appointed an arbitrator in the approaching arbitration proceedings between the Grand Trunk and the Government. May I ask the Government if this is true?


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I think that was stated in the pi ess merely as a rumour. There has been no appointment made.


RACE TRACK LEGISLATION.
Robert Laird Borden: Just as I entered the House this afternoon my attention was directed to an extraordinary despatch which appears in today's Ottawa Citizen, and which purports to emanate from Toronto. ' It is as follows:


EXPECTED THE RACE MEN TO WIN OUT.
[Stage Direction]
Toronto, June 13.-Rev. Dr. Chown, general superintendent, informed the Methodist conference yesterday morning that he had sent letters to Ottawa declaring the position of the Methodist church on race track gambling.
Rev. Dr. Speer stated that letters were of no avail in this case, "but money in the lobby. We hadn't the money. I hope the department did something. It was a foregone conclusion that these men of the race track would get what they wanted."
As far as my knowledge goes, and according to my firm conviction, the suggestion or implication contained in the words of Dr. Speer, if he is correctly reported, is a most outrageous and scandalous libel.
Some hon. M,EMBERS: Hear, hear.
Robert Laird Borden: I sincerely hope he is not correctly reported. Since my return to Parliament some five weeks ago I have not seen a race track man around the

lobby of this House, and I have not heard of one being here.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor have I.


Robert Laird Borden: The reflection
upon Parliament by this gentleman, if he is correctly reported, is so serious that I thought it my duty to mention the matter openly and publicly, and to request His Honour the Speaker to consider what would be the appropriate action, if action be deemed advisable, for Parliament to take jn the matter.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: May ,1 say that I believe the action of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister in drawing attention to any statement which reflects upon the independence of members of Parliament, will be approved by every member of the House. I join with my right hon. friend in the hope that the despatch as it appears in the press is not a correct report.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I also hope that the despatch is not true but so far as I am concerned I shall feel it my duty to take such action in the matter, if it be true, as will properly preserve the honour and the dignity of Parliament


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not only is the honour of members of the House of Commons involved in a statement of this character, but there is likewise involved the question of sapping and undermining public confidence in the representative institutions in a democratic country. It seems to me, therefore, that if the statement has been correctly reported it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.


Mr. BUREAU:: May I be allowed to offer a suggestion? I would ignore absolutely the fellow who indulged in such slander. To do otherwise would be giving him too much publicity. I would not bring him before the Bar of the House because that would be disgracing the bar. I would meet the statement with silent contempt.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: The practice of indulgence in statements of this character is all too common throughout the country. If this man has any data to support such a statement he should come forward and acquaint the public with it. If he has not then his conduct should be stigmatized in the manner which such conduct deserves
and he should be required to prove his words.


POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMS' DEPARTMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice in the Montreal Gazette of this morning a long editorial concerning the appointment of a United States firm to investigate the Post Office and Customs Departments of Canada, which firm, it is said, has been engaged at a figure of $10,000 per month. Is that a correct statement? If so, for what purpose is that investigation to be held?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has a motion on the Order Paper in regard to the matter. I think it would be undesirable to enter into a discussion in his absence and in advance of the motion itself.


PICTOU HARBOUR.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 121, respecting the harbour of Pictou in Nova Scotia, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Jacques Bureau: I understand that this harbour used to be administered by a commission the same as the harbour of Three Rivers-


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member's remarks are not in order on clause 1, which is merely the "short title" of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: For once you are right, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I thought it was clause 2.
Section agreed to
On section 2-Property and rights vested in His Majesty.


Jacques Bureau: 1 understand that the harbour of Pictou has heretofore been administered by a commission in the same way as the harbour of Three Rivers, and that hereafter all liabilities and! expenditures are to be assumed by the Government, and that a department of the Government is to administer the harbour. Will there be any particular officer in Pictou to look after that administration? Will the Government hereafter eharge any wharfage or dockage dues

to ships using this harbour, or will it be treated the same as our other harbours? Or is the fact? that it is going to be administered by the 'Government an indication that the Government will assume the responsibility of improving the harbour without charging the expenditure against the harbour itself, this expenditure being paid from the Dominion Treasury? If that be the case, I would ask tke minister to put the harbour of Three Rivers in the same position, because we require a lot of improvements there.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: My hon. friend has judged the situation correctly. The revenue from the port of Pictou has been decreasing year by year until at the present time the expenditure is about $450 in excess of the revenue. It is not the intention of the Government to undertake any new work there; the purpose of this Bill is simply to transfer the administration of the port from the Harbour Commission to the Department of Public Works. There have been many precedents for this action, and the transfer will not involve any extra expense to the Government that I can see. The question of liabilities was raised when the resolution was under discussion some weeks ago, and I have since ascertained that the Harbour Commission does not owe any money, but will be turning over to the department, if this Bill passes, about $186. With regard to the very important port of Three Rivers, I shall be very glad to give every consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Bureau).


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you an estimate of how much money will be required to put the harbour of Pictou in good shape?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As far as I understand, no expenditure will be necessary, the wharves being in a sufficiently good state of repair at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are any repairs asked for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: None.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept my hon. friend's word, for I know he is a business man and understands the value of figures. But, Mr. Chairman, I view with alarm the taking over by the Government of any of these public works. I have been surprised of late to receive from a firm of brokers a circular wherein the name of the Dominion is being paraded as endorsing the scheme for the improvement of the harbour of St.

John. It will be remembered that this harbour was taken over by the Government, but how I do not know.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It has not been taken over yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Bonds are being issued to meet the expenditure on the harbour works, and those bonds are endorsed by the Government.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will conclude if my hon. friend pleases. I notice that those bonds are endorsed by the Dominion, and the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), as Acting Minister of Public Works, is made use of in that circular. I have the greatest possible objection to the credit of the Dominion being used to assist enterprises of this nature. The public will be surprised when it. becomes known that the treasury is being involved to the extent of millions of dollars for the St. John harbour improvements. I do not know if this has escaped the attention of the Government, but I was appalled when I saw that our national credit was being pledged in that way.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. minister replies-and I think a reply would now be quite in order-I take it for granted that this reference to the harbour of St. John is only by way of comparison.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Because it will be entirely out of order to enter into a general discussion concerning the harbour of St. John in connection with this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am afraid of the prospect of any further dealings with harbour commissions in the Maritime Provinces. We were assured when the subject of the St. John harbour works was before the House that everything was above board. Now we find that gentlemen at St. John are selling harbour bonds,-and it is quite easy for them to get the money when the name of the Dominion appears as the guarantor of those bonds. We are taxed beyond the human limit, and the people of this country are quite willing to be so taxed, but only in a legitimate way, and they will not tolerate any such incursions on the Government Exchequer.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is true that a
year ago authority was given by Parliament for the taking over, under conditions clear-

ly specified in legislation introduced for that purpose, of the port of St. John and placing it under a commission. But effect could be given to that legislation only after the city of St. John held a referendum in which the majority of the people declared themselves in favour of nationalizing the port and placing it under a commission. Such a referendum has not yet been held; therefore the port has not. been nationalized-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend
seen the circular-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Just allow me to finish. The Government, accordingly, did not guarantee any of the debentures for the city of St. John, so far as my knowledge goes. They will do so only after a referendum is taken and the harbour passes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine. At present the city of St. John do their own financing for the port; the Dominion Government do not guarantee any of their debentures.


Mr. CAHILL:: When the resolution was before the committee I asked why special treatment was given in this particular case. For instance, I have a communication from residents of Fabre, on lake Timiskaming, who claim that their dock was damaged by the ice last winter and that they have been obliged to land their goods on the shore; yet they are paying wharfage dues. Why are these people treated differently from the people of Pictou? What is the policy of the Government in regard to wharves where dues are being paid but where the necessary accommodation is not being furnished? Will it be necessary for the minister to bring in a Bill for each one?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This procedure has been followed on more than one occasion. For instance, under my predecessor, Sir Douglas Hazen, the harbour of North Sydney was transferred from the Department of Marine to the Department of Public Works. I mention only this instance now, but I could cite many other similar cases. I would suggest that my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) should write me in regard to the particular harbour that he speaks about. If the revenue there is not sufficient to keep the wharf in a satisfactory state of repair, it would be quite in order for me to bring the matter to the attention of this House, as has been done in the case of Pictou harbour.


Mr. DUFF:: If this Bill passes will the business of the port be conducted by the harbour master or by an engineer of the
Department of Public Works when repairs are necessary?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The business of the harbour will be conducted by the harbour master, who will be under the Public Works Department.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I would like to know definitely from the minister what the policy of the Government will be after the authority which has hitherto been vested in harbour commissions has been done away with. How will the works that are now in existence be maintained? Under present conditions, whatever money these commissioners get is used for the building of wharves and breakwaters and their maintenance, as well as a little dredging. The minister mentioned the harbour of North Sydney. We have a few works in that harbour which were built by the commission. The breakwater near the north end of the harbour is so old that I cannot tell the minister whether it was 'built by the commission or not. I do know that while the commission were in existence they used to repair the breakwater and keep it in shape. During the last two years, since the commission went out of existence, the whole of the harbour and its works have been under the control of the Government, and I have been instructed by men interested in the conditions at North Sydney that this breakwater, which is a very useful structure, affording protection to the whole harbour and particularly to the coal and iron ore piers of the Nova Scotia Steel Company, is falling into decay or disrepair. Very little money will keep it in repair, but if it is broken up or destroyed by the action of the sea it will cost a great deal to put it in good condition. I bring this matter to the notice of the minister with a view to his seeing that this useful breakwater is not allowed to be brokqn up or destroyed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
On section 3-obligations assumed by His Majesty:
William Duff: The minister has said that there were no obligations or liabilities; yet this section provides:
Ail proceedings in any court either instituted by or against the said Commissioners may be proceeded with as if this Act had not passed.
That would seem to indicate that there are liabilities and obligations.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This is merely put in for legal purposes so that if any one should resurrect a claim that we do not know of at present, action shall lie against

His Majesty the King instead of against the harbour commissioners of Pictou.


William Duff: There are no liabilities,
then?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.
. Mr. McKENZIE : I understood the minister to give his assent to what I suggested in regard to the harbour of North Sydney, though he did not say so; and that he is willing to look after these works and keep them in repair. The people of North Sydney, who will be watching Hansard in order to see what it has to say in regard to the matter, will not he able to obtain from Hansard what is in the mind of the minister. I should, therefore, like him to declare in a general way his policy as regards those works that are being taken over. I am sure the policy will be to maintain them, and that being the case, it will be more satisfactory to our people who are now at the mercy of the Government as regards the maintenance of those works, if the minister puts a declaration of his policy on Hansard.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The reason I did
not make a direct answer to my hon. friend is due to the fact that the port of North Sydney comes under the Public Works Department and not the Department of Marine. I see the Acting Minister of Public Works is not in his seat, but I shall be very glad to bring to his attention the representations made by my hon. friend in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Inland Revenue Aot, chapter 51 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, and to provide:-
1. That the definition of " chemical still " in paragraph (g) of section 3 of the said Act be amended so as to include the provision that " chemical still " shall mean any distilling apparatus the measured content of which is less than fifty gallons; and that section 150 be amended by providing that a chemist or druggist using a chemical still, the measured content of which does not exceed three gallons, may be permitted to use the same upon registration as provided therein;

2. That the definition of " standard leaf tobacco " in paragraph (c) of section 8 be amended so as to include the provision that " standard leaf tobacco " as applied to any kind of tobacco means that which contains ten per cent or more of moisture;
3.	That section 155 be amended to provide for abatements to be allowed in the computation of duty upon spirits, for shrinkage by evaporation while maturing, when stored in warehouse in wooden or in ventilated metal
; S[Oj.req uepooAV ui ao s^uer
4.	That sction 171 be amended to provide that the Governor in Council may suspend, during such period or periods as he may deem necessary, the operation of subsection 4 of this section, which provides that no spirits subject to excise which have not been warehoused for at least two years shall be entered for consumption ;
5.	That section 180, respecting distilling without license, be amended by increasing the penalty of not less than $100 for a first offence to a penalty of not less than $200; and that section 185, respecting the sale of spirits unlawfully manufactured, be amended by increasing the penalties for a first offence not exceeding $50, and not less than $10, and for each subsequent offence, a penalty of $100, to penalties respectively not exceeding $500 and not less than $200, and for each subsequent offence a penalty of $500 ;
6.	That section 180, respecting distilling without lioense, be further amended by adding a subsection to provide that in every prosecution under this section, the certificate of analysis from a Departmental Analyst shall be accepted as evidence of the alcoholic content of the beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits;
7.	That subsection 1 of section 198 be amended to provide that the bond to be given by a brewer shall be in the sum of $2,000 instead of $1,000;
8.	That section 252 be amended to provide that the excise duty on spirits used in any bonded factory in the production of vinegar, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, shall be 27 cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength and for any less quantity than a gallon;
9.	That section 255 be amended that there may be a remission of duty on malt used in the manufacture of vinegar, or malt used in combination with cereals, in such proportion as is established by the Governor in Council;
10.	That subsection 2 of section 266 of the said Act, as enacted by section 7 of chapter 34 of the statutes of 1908, be amended to provide that the words "Methyl Hydrate-Poison" in black letters not less than one-quarter inch in height be affixed by containers of methyl alcohol in medicinal preparations intended for external use;
11.	That section 267 be amended to provide that the Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations respecting the sale of spirits to be used for any chemical or manufacturing purposes riot otherwise provided for;
12.	That section 282 be amended by adding a subsection to provide that the Department may authorize the preparation of tobacco and cigars in packages of such size and the issue of stamps in such denominations to govern the same as may appear advisable, but as to the necessity or advisability of issuing such stamps, the department shall be the sole judge;
13.	That section 316, as enacted by section 19 of chapter 34 of the statutes of 1908, be

amended to provide that no less quantity than 5,000 cigars shall be entered for warehouse by one entry, and except for export no less quantity than 2,000 cigars shall be ex-warehoused by one entry;
14.	That the 6aid Act be amended by adding 'thereto a section, 328B, to provide (1) that
every person who desires to pack or cure Cana-lian Leaf Tobacco shall make application to the Collector of Inland Revenue for the division in which his premises are situated, for a license therefor; for which license the packer shall pay a sum of $50 and furnish a bond of a guarantee company, approved by the Department, for the sum of $1,000; and he shall keep such books and make such returns as shall be required by the Department; (2) that the Minister may make such regulations as he deems advisable respecting the sale of Canadian Leaf Tobacco by cultivators, packers and retail dealers and for the carrying out of the provisions of this proposed section; (3) that a packer, for the purpose of this section, is a person or firm, other than a cultivator and other than a retail merchant selling direct to a consumer, who prepares, packs or keeps Canadian Raw Leaf Tobacco for sale to a licensed packer, licensed manufacturer, licensed cultivator, retail merchant, or for export; and (4) that the penalty for violating any provision of this section or refusing or neglecting to comply with the requirements of the Act or any regulations made thereunder, shall be a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not exceeding two hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months or to both fine and imprisonment, and all Canadian Leaf Tobacco found in the possession of any person so violating this section shall be forfeited to His Majesty ;
15.	That section 366 and 367 be repealed, and in lieu thereof it be enacted that acetic acid may only be sold under the name of acetic acid, and no manufacturer, vendor or other dealer in the same shall be permitted to sell or offer for sale acetic acid under the name or as a substitute for vinegar, and that the penalty for violation of this provision shall be not less than $200, and all acetic acid found on the premises wherein any such offence is committed shall be forfeited to the Crown, and shall be seized by any officer of Inland Revenue and dealt with accordingly.
16.	That section 251, relating to the supply of wood naphtha, wood alcohol, or methylated or other denaturalized spirit to be used for manufacturing purposes in Canada, and Part X of the said Act, as enacted by chapter 34 of the statutes of 1968, respecting the manufacture of wood alcohol, be repealed, and that in lieu thereof a new Part X be enacted to provide:-
(a)	That "denatured alcohol" shall mean alcohol in suitable admixture with such de-naturants as to render it in the judgment of the Minister non-potable, and to prevent recovery of the ethyl alcohol; and "especially denatured alcohol" shall mean alcohol in suitable admixture with such special denaturants as have been approved by the Minister;
(b)	That denatured alcohol and specially denatured alcohol which is intended for use in the arts and industries, or for fuel, light or power, or for any mechanical purpose, may be manufactured in Canada, free from excise duty;
(c)	That except as provided by this Part no alcohol shall be manufactured, denatured or
recovered in Canada except in distilleries thereto licensed;	'	[DOT]
(d)	That denatured alcohol shall be sold, delivered and transported without restriction to dealers, manufacturers and other persons, but specially denatured alcohol shall only be sold or delivered under a departmental permit to dealers and manufacturers, to be used in the. arts and industries in cases where denatured alcohol would be unsuitable, and shall only be moved or transported under such conditions as the Minister may, by regulations, prescribe;
(e)	That no alcohol shall be manufactured or sold under the provisions of this Part for beverage purposes ;
(f)	That the recovery of alcohol after it has been used for industrial purposes, and its redistillation and purification shall only be done on the premises in which the alcohol was used or at a duly licensed distillery, and all alcohol recovered on the premises aforesaid must be used in the same manufacturing establishment in which it was originally used ;
(g)	That labels on vessels containing wood alcohol or denatured alcohol shall bear the words "Methyl-Hydrate-Poison" in black letters on white ground not less than one-fourth of an inch in height.
(h)	That as respects wood alcohol a license shall be required to carry on its manufacture, approved by the district inspector, and the manufacturer shall, jointly with a guarantee company approved by the Department, enter into a bond to His Majesty in the sum of $4,000, conditioned for the rendering of all accounts, inventories and returns required by law, for the payment of all penalties incurred by the licensee, and for faithful compliance with the requirements of the Act; and the person in whose favour a license is granted shall pay a license fee of one dollar upon receiving such license;
(i)	That any person who holds in possession, sells, exchanges or delivers any alcohol or specially denatured alcohol contrary to the provisions of this Part shall be liable upon summary conviction, to a penalty of not less than two hundred dollars and not exceeding five hundred dollars ; and all the provisions of Part II of the said Act respecting bonded manufacturers, licensee, and the obligations of persons holding them, the keeping of books of accounts and the making of returns, and all provisions respecting penalties, so far as applicable, shall apply to the manufacture of wood alcohol, the manufacture, denaturing, special denaturing and recovery of alcohol, and the persons licensed as herein provided.
Mr. STEVENS:: I wish to 'bring to the
attention of the minister a matter I have already taken up with his- department and to ask that before the Bill is finally passed the request I am going to make be given consideration. Owing to the increased tax on alcohol, the cost to hospitals will be considerably increased. I am informed by the Vancouver General Hospital, for instance, and the same will be true in varying degree of all hospitals, I presume, that the increased tax will result in additional cost to that one hospital, which is a very large institution, of upwards of $3,000 per annum. As there are many hospitals, the cost will



be increased to them very, very materially in the aggregate. I would suggest to the minister that when the Bill is brought down it should contain a provision that spirits used exclusively in hospitals for medicinal purposes shall be exempt from taxation.


Mr. BURRELL:: My hon. friend will doubtless appreciate the difficulties that face the department in the control of alcohol after it leaves the distillery. It is quite true that under the present Act alcohol used for any purposes whatsoever and whether it went to hospitals or elsewhere would have to pay the excise duty of $2.40 a gallon. When it was proposed to amend the Act last year there was quite a strong appeal made by the various hospitals and by scientific laboratories in the country to have alcohol which was used in hospitals and in laboratories for research purposes exempted from the tax. The matter has been given some consideration. In respect to the particular point my hon. friend raises I may say that to grant his request would in effect be giving the hospitals another form of subsidy. With the additional duty of $2 hospitals will pay for the alcohol they use for medicinal purposes a duty of $4.40 a gallon. It is quite true that if the additional $2 was not imposed in the case of hospitals, or if the whole excise tax was not imposed in their case, it would be a great benefit to the hospitals, *but it would, of course, entail that much loss of revenue to the Government. In effect, therefore, it would be giving the hospitals a subsidy. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the excise duty paid by the Vancouver General Hospital to which my hon. friend has referred, on the alcohol it used during the year was a little over $2,000. To meet my hon. friend's request would simply mean that the treasury of this country would be practically foregoing $2,000 for the benefit of that hospital. It is an arguable point whether hospitals should be subsidized by the noncollection of that revenue. It is a question whether the additional money required for the payment of that alcohol should be given as a direct subsidy by the Government or should be subscribed by those who at the present time support the hospital. I need hardly say that I have a great deal of sympathy personally with the view expressed by my hon. friend, and which has been put before the department from many different sources in Canada. I shall be quite willing to give the matter fuller consideration before the Bill is brought,down. In the meantime I would suggest that my hon. friend let the matter stand.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: It has been represented to me that the imposition of a tax on alcohol and the numerous restrictions placed upon its use by the department have made alcohol very expensive and have hampered scientific men in their investigations requiring its use. I am not familiar enough with the subject to judge whether these criticisms are valid or not, but I just wish to direct the minister's attention to this matter, which has been called to my attention by a college professor, and I should like to know if there is any reason for the imposition of these restrictions.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend's point
touches to some extent the point raised by *my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens). It is true that as regards commercial work we are making a great advance because under this Bill we are providing for the elimination of the excise duty on the ethyl alcohol when converted by the addition of wood alcohol into methylated spirits; but I do not think that is exactly the form of alcohol to which my hon. friend refers. The point raised by my hon. friend from, Guysborough is more in relation I think to the ethyl alcohol used for scientific purposes. It is true that it would be a great benefit to have this exempt from the tax, but I must point out the objection that exists in the case of all these exemptions from the duty, and that is in connection with releasing the alcohol from the distilleries into other people's hands in a form in which it can be used for beverage purposes. With the recently added duty the total duty on alcohol will be $5 on the imported and $4.40 excise. My hon. friend will understand the frantic desire of gentlemen of a bibulous temperament, of whom there seem to be still a great many in the country, to get hold of this alcohol, and the great difficulty of control when once out of our hands. Under the present prohibitory legislation of this country-and I am not pronouncing an opinion upon it from a moral standpoint, but simply looking at it in a cold-blooded business-like way so far as operating the department is concerned-the result has been that owing to the high and mounting costs of spirits of all kinds, where about two years ago we were only prosecuting a score or so of people for manufacturing spirits by illicit stills, the number last year amounted to nearly nine hundred, and I venture to say we have only touched the fringe. Every form of alcohol that can be used for beverage purposes becomes increasingly difficult to control directly it leaves our hands.

It cannot leave our hands until the duty is paid by the distillery but directly we give it into other people's hands to be used for different purposes, it is going to make it an exceedingly difficult matter to control. It is rather a serious question for the department to consider. As the matter stands at present I have not been disposed to grant freedom from the excise duty to ethyl alcohol used for the purpose which my hon. friend speaks of although, I repeat, we have 'made a very great concession by permitting denatured alcohol to be free of excise duty and that, I think, will give a great impetus to commercial and industrial work.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: What duty does this law impose on ethyl alcohol when imported for industrial purposes and what is the excise duty on alcohol manufactured in this country?


Martin Burrell: Methylated spirits can
only be imported by the department under the Act as it stands. The department itself, under the law, has been the sole maker and dispenser of methylated spirits. There is a duty on wood alcohol that is brought in, and, of course, on alcohol, but up to the present time we have been the sole makers and dispensers of methylated spirits. The Bill would give us the power to grant licensees the privilege of importing. On wood alcohol, the duty, I think, is twenty cents a gallon.	*


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And the excise?


Martin Burrell: There would be no excise duty on wood alcohol.


Mr. BELAND:: Does the department import any methylated spirits?


Martin Burrell: No, we make them all. The department has been purchasing ethyl alcohol and wood alcohol, and then making the methylated spirits, the methylated spirts when ethyl and wood alcohol are mixed together being such that the alcohol is non-recoverable for drinking purposes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No excise duty is being
paid on ethyl alcohol?


Martin Burrell: Yes, on ethyl alcohol.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It makes the methylated ' spirit pretty high for the department to dispense?


Martin Burrell: We do not pay the duty and therefore we do not calculate the duty as being a part of the cost, but even at that it is urged that the department cannot make it as cheaply as people would be able to get it if they were allowed to go into 222J
the business of making ethyl alcohol and also methylated spirits. But there has been some dispute about that. I do not think that the anticipations some of them have as to cheaper industrial alcohol will be realized in the future. It is a somewhat difficult matter, however, to keep up to the requirements unless we enlarge our plants, and this Bill will allow others to go into the business.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the price of
methylated spirits?


Martin Burrell: I think we got it down as low as ninety cents a gallon one timer it is somewhere between that and $1.20. L will give my hon. friend the precise figures: in reference to this. Before the resolution is carried I might refer very briefly to one or two other provisions. There are several clauses in the resolution which very much increase the penalties in connection not only with illicitly distilling, but also with the selling of liquor illicitly distilled. Under the old Act a man who distilled without a license was only fined $100 for the first offence. This is increased to $200, it being quite manifest that if he illicitly distilled a barrel or two the product would be worth more than the fine and therefore we have thought that we ought to double up on the fine in order that he will run a very much greater risk. Similarly, under the old law, the penalty for a man who got the liquor that was "illicitly distilled and then sold it was almost nominal. The fine imposed on that man is heavier than the fine imposed on the man who illicitly distills. I think the House will be thoroughly in accord with the amendment. The resolution deals with another important matter that I would like to take up a little more explicitly when the Bill comes down and that is the complete change in the administration of the Act in respect to vinegar and acetic acid. Last year this Bill was brought up and there was very strong opposition to it on the part of certain firms who had been manufacturing acetic acid by a new process and who objected very strongly on the ground that it was a deterrent to a lot of our manufacturing processes to tax acetic acid at the rate of four cents a gallon. When the Act first came into force they charged the vinegar man not on the spirits that were used in the making of the vinegar but on the acetic acid contained in the vinegar when it was manufactured, four cents a gallon. There was another clause in the Act which imposed a duty of four cents a gallon on the acetic acid produced from wood alcohol. Subsequent to this time and

during the war there has been a process devised by which they can get acetic acid in very much greater purity from other sources and consequently we found it necessary to consider whether we should impose that four cent duty on all forms of manufactured acetic acid or leave it off altogether. On giving the matter very full consideration *we have decided to revise the method of taxing the vinegar men and we have decided to tax them on the spirits and not on the acetic acid contained in the vinegar and then to free acetic acid altogether from taxation. I think that in so far as revenue goes the thing will about balance and it will give a very great impetus to a whole lot of manufacturing processes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Was it the manufacturers or the producers of leaf tobacco who asked for the change set forth in section 2:
That the definition of "Standard Leaf Tobacco" in paragraph "C" of Section 8 be amended so as to include the provision that "Standard Leaf Tobacco" as applied to any kind of tobacco means that which contains ten per cent or more of moisture.


Martin Burrell: That is a matter that has been deemed extremely desirable by the department itself. At the present time the law in reference to standard leaf tobacco says tobacco " which contains ten per cent of water and ninety per cent of solid matter." On raw leaf tobacco that comes in some will have ten per cent of moisture, some twelve, some sixteen and some perhaps eighteen. This tobacco is tested and dried, and if it has ten per cent of moisture they are charged on ninety per cent' of tobacco; if it goes to sixteen per cent, they are allowed six per cent for moisture. If on the other hand it goes only eight per cent, they are charged on ninety-two per cent. The consequence is that it involves not only a great amount of work but results in a confused lot of tests. We have considered it would be only fair to cease the practice altogether and to say that tobacco shall be taken to mean tobacco containing ten per cent moisture and no more. If it is above ten per cent, say twelve per cent, importers are penalized to that extent. The matter will adjust itself immediately because what will happen will be that the man who is shipping tobacco will simply dry it to ten per cent. It will mean the release of a large number of our men for the purposes of other work and permit the operations of the department to be conducted expeditiously and without inconvenience to those concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may not have caught the full force of the minister's statement in regard to some sale that he mentioned. I understood him to say that he was providing against the sale of illicit liquors. I may be wrong in that but if so I think it is practically new ground for the Dominion to cover. I understood that when what we call liquors get into the shape of being commercial commodities they came under the jurisdiction of the province entirely, and that the provincial authorities would have the say as to what the punishment would be for selling anything in the shape of intoxicating liquors. I do not think that we have the power to make laws of that kind.


Martin Burrell: Section 185 of the Inland Revenue Act provides as follows:
Every person who sells or offers for sale, or who purchases any spirits, or has any spirits in his possession, knowing them to have been unlawfully manufactured or imported, shall, for first offence, incur a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars, and not less than ten dollars, and for each subsequent offence, a penalty of one hundred dollars; and all spirits so unlawfully manufactured or imported, wheresoever they are found, and all horses and vehicles and other appliances which have been or are being used for the purpose of removing the same, shall be forfeited to the Crown, and shall be dealt with accordingly.
It is considered necessary for the Inland Revenue Department . to have the entire control of all manufacture of spirits and this legislation not only increases the penalty against those who manufacture liquor illicitly, but with Tespect to those who try to sell it and are detected the fines are greatly increased.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has that been the law heretofore?


Martin Burrell: Yes, it has been the law for years.
Resolutions reported and read a first and second time; thereupon Mr. Burrell moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 178 entitled an Act to .amend the Inland Revenue Act, chapter 51 of the Revised Statutes of 1906.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion to go into Supply.
On the motion for the House to again go into Committee of Supply:
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Speaker, before this
resolution carries I would ask to be per-
JUNE 14, mo
mitted to give some details to the House regarding the naval expenditures of the Government, and also, so far as I am in a position to do so, in reference to matters of future policy. First let me say that at the Imperial Conference in London which I attended, in company with the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden) and others of my colleagues in the Government, the ' question of naval policy, either for Canada or the Empire, was not discussed.


William Duff: To what year has the minister reference?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 1918. Certain negotiations, however, took place between the British Admiralty and the overseas representatives who were in London at the time. I myself, on certain occasions, discussed the naval defence of Canada with the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Roslyn Wemyss, and also with the First Civil Lord, .Sir Eric Geddes. I also had the good fortune to have my right hon. friend the Prime Minister accompany me on one occasion when we reviewed the whole situation frankly and fairly. As a result of these conferences with the Admiralty a meeting of the Overseas Prime Ministers was held at the Savoy Hotel, London. Sir Robert Borden occupied the Chair at that meeting, and after a full discussion a memorandum was prepared, passed upon, and sent to the Admiralty, its date being 15th August, 1918. Before I read that memorandum I might be permitted to submit a letter accompanying it which was sent by Sir Robert Borden: Imperial Conference, 1918.
Decision of Dominions' Ministers re Navail Policy of Dominions.
Offices of the War Cabinet,
2 Whitehall Gardens, S.W. 1.
15th August, 1918.
Dear Sir Eric Geddes,-
I am afraid the brevity of the time at my disposal will prevent me bringing up in the Imperial War Cabinet the subject dealt with in the Admiralty memorandum.
I have, however, consulted the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, who (with the exception of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland), have expressed their approval of the accompanying memorandum.
The Prime Minister of Newfoundland has been requested to communicate with you direct on the subject.
Faithfully yours,
(Sd.) R. L. Borden.
The Right Honourable
Sir Eric Geddes, K.C.B., C.B.E., M.P.
The memorandum, which received the approval of all the Overseas Prime Ministers, with the exception of Dr. Lloyd, Premier of Newfoundland, reads as follows :
Memorahdum.
The Dominion Ministers, having considered the Admiralty Memorandum of May 17, 1918, on the Naval Defence of the British Empire, which was circulated to the Imperial War Conference, 1918, submit the following conclusions and observations.
1.	The proposals set forth in the Admiralty Memorandum for a single navy at all times under a central naval authority are not considered practicable.
2.	Purely from the standpoint of naval strategy the reasons thus put forward for the establishment of a single navy for the Empire under a central naval authority, are strong but not unanswerable. The experience gained in this war has shown that in time of war a Dominion Navy (e.g. that of Australia), can .operate with the highest efficiency as part of a united navy under one direction and command established after the outbreak of war.
3.	It is thoroughly recognized that the character of construction, armament andi equipment, and the methods and principles of training, administration and organization, should proceed upon the same lines in all the navies of the Empire. This policy has already been followed in those Dominions which have established naval forces.
4.	For this purpose the Dominions would welcome visits from a highly qualified representative of the Admiralty who, by reason of his ability and experience, would be thoroughly competent to advise the naval authorities of the Dominions in such matters.
5.	As naval forces come to be developed upon a considerable scale by the Dominions it may be necessary hereafter to consider the establishment for war purposes of some supreme naval authority upon which each of the Dominions would be adequately represented.
In consequence of the foregoing memorandum the Admiralty sent a highly technical and distinguished naval officer in the person of Admiral Viscount Jellicoe to visit the overseas Dominions.


William Duff: Before the minister proceeds, would it toe a breach of confidence on his part to tell us what the suggestion in the memorandum was to which the Prime Minister of Newfoundland refused to agree?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I desire to make
it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister of Newfoundland did not refuse to agree to the suggestions contained in the memorandum. He did not happen to be present at the Conference between the overseas Prime Ministers, for what reason I am unable to state now, but I have no ground to suppose that the then Prime Minister of Newfoundland would have raised any dissenting voice to the memorandum I have just Tead.


William Duff: Has he agreed to it since?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No. I was proceeding to say, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of this memorandum submitted on behalf

of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Admiral Viscount Jellicoe was instructed by the British Admiralty to visit the overseas Dominions, to consult with their governments, and to make reports to them as to what in his opinion would be the best policy for their adoption. Hon. members are quite familiar with the very lucid and useful suggestions offered to the Government of Canada by Lord Jellicoe whose report I tabled some weeks ago.
This Government carefully considered the suggestions contained in that report, but in view of the conditions which I mentioned to this House some weeks ago we decided to defer taking any action on them for the present. With the kind permission of hon. members I will again read to the House that memorandum in order that my remarks on Naval Affairs may appear in consecutive order in Hansard. This is the memorandum which I read on a previous occasion:
The Government has had under consideration for some time the question of the naval defence of Canada and the suggestion of Admiral Visoount Jellicoe in reference thereto.
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Great Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval policy, and of the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home Government and the Overseas Dominions,	it has been	decided
to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
The Government has decided to carry on the Canadian Naval	Service along	pre-war
lines and has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers to take the place of the present obsolete and useless training ships, the Niobe and Rainbow.
The Minister of Naval Service, in order to be free to thoroughly reorganize and place the present service on an economical and efficient basis, has issued orders for the demobilization of all officers and naval ratings and for the discontinuance of civilian help at headquarters and at the Naval Dockyards in Esquimau and Halifax. The Canadian officers who are in the Imperial fleet and who are now being paid by the Canadian Government will be recalled and placed on duty with the Canadian Naval Service. The Naval College will also be continued. After reorganization has been completed, only those officers and other ratings and civilians will be taken on who are absolutely necessary and possess the qualifications desired.
I have nothing to add to that except to say that it is the Governments official statement on naval affairs at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not hear exactly what my hon. friend said about the offer 
of some ships from the Mother Country to replace the Niobe and Rainbow. Has the Government accepted those ships?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government
has not officially taken them over. Captain Hose, the Acting Director of Naval Service, is in England at the present time looking into the details, but the Government has officially notified the Admiralty that we do gratefully accept the offer of one modern light cruiser and two modern torpedo boat destroyers. I will have something more to say in regard to that offer as I proceed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are any conditions attached to it?
Mr. DEPUTY' SPEAKER: Order. I must remind hon. members that the House is not in committee, and that therefore the minister should be allowed to place his remarks on Hansard in consecutive form without interruption.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: formed splendid service on the Pacific Coast. On instructions from the Admiralty she went to Mexico and brought safely to the port of Victoria the small British gunboats, the "Shearwater" and the "Algerine." While she did not meet any enemy ships, she was stripped for action and ready and anxious to meet them at any time, whatever the result might be. The "Niobe" was put in commission and steamed some 30,000 miles. On instructions from the Admiralty she and the "Rainbow" were finally taken out of active service. All their guns were removed in order that they might be placed on merchant vessels and both these ships were used from that time until the close of the war as depot ships. The Naval Service performed very excellent work also in providing patrols, especially on the Atlantic. In addition they maintained a regular mine-sweeping service on the trade routes and at entrances to har-hours, and on more than one occasion succeeded in sweeping out enemy mines.
A very active recruiting policy was carried on to get the necessary officers and men, as a result, 6,452 of all ranks were enrolled for the Canadian Naval Service, while 1,700 were enrolled in the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve (Overseas Division), and sent to England where they served in the Imperial Navy. This was done at the request of the Imperial Government. In addition, 82 wrere recruited for' the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service; 376 for the Imperial Motor Boat Patrol Service; 382 for the Royal Naval Air Force, a total of 8,992. The recruits were trained and placed in service with the greatest despatch consistent with efficiency. As fast as vessels could be procured and got ready they were put into commission.
The casualties suffered during the war totalled 26 officers and 158 men, including the 5 college graduates previously mentioned. One officer and 39 men of the Overseas Division of the Royal Canadian Naval ' Volunteer Reserve lost their lives. The Naval Service of Canada had to provide all the supplies necessary not only for their own ships but also for the ships of Great Britain and her allies operating in the vicinity of the Canadian coasts. The purchases *for stores alone amounted in 1917-18 to the large amount of $10,074,643. They also carried on at Halifax and. Esquimalt what was known as an examination service. This service was established shortly after the outbreak of war, all shipping on the re-

spective coasts being intercepted and examined before entering and leaving port.
I should like to say that the radiotelegraph service was found to be most efficient.
I should have failed in my duty if, before concluding my remarks regarding the Naval Service, I did not refer to the Naval Intelligence Department. While their work was secret, it was very necessary, and they performed their duties to the entire satisfaction, not only of the Naval Service of Canada, but of the Admiralty as well.
The total expenditure for naval purposes in the year 1918 amounted to the large sum of $33,367,433.09. The number of naval officers and ratings enrolled was 4,853, and the number of civilians employed was 1,375. The net cost, however, to the Canadian Government was only $11,527,727.48. The difference between the expenditures and the net cost represents the value of services rendered to the Imperial and Allied Governments, and illustrates forcibly the extent of that service.
As regards the Naval College, it might interest the House if I gave lust briefly the number of our young Canadians who have joined this service since the college started in 1911. One hundred and thirty-five joined all told, 68 of whom served in the Imperial service and 23 withdrew altogether. The number of Canadians now in the college is 45, and the Canadian Government have agreed that each year we shall send at the expense of Canada, eight of those cadets to be trained in the Imperial Navy, so that from time to time as occasion arises, when we require officers on our own ships, we shall be able to recall from the Imperial service those young Canadian officers who will have received a thorough training in the large fleet of the Home Government.
I might be permitted to refer to two of our young Canadian officers who have distinguished themselves in a signal manner in the Imperial Navy. I refer to Lieut. Brodeur, son of a former Minister of the Naval Service, who has been selected to specialize in gunnery and who at the present time is studying at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. Besides him we have Lieut. Gauvreau, son of the hon. member for Temiscouata '(Mr. Gauvreau), who is presently serving in the Intelligence Branch at headquarters. Both of these very gallant and able young Canadian officers, as also the other young Canadian naval officers will be employed at headquarters or at Halifax.or on board the cruiser or destroyers. All of our Canadians who have served in the Imperial Navy have, I have been informed by the Admiralty, most excellent re-

cords. Therefore, the Government thought it the part of wisdom to continue to send, each year at the expense of the country, eight of our bright young graduates from the Naval College to receive training in the great home fleet and to be on call whenever the Canadian Government requires their services.
I should like to refer to the re-organization of the service. I have given the maximum number of officers, all ratings, and civilians employed in the Naval Service when the war was at its height. So that I might have a free hand to re-organize the entire Naval Service of Canada, with the consent of the Government I issued general demobilization orders to all naval ratings and to all civilians at headquarters, Esquimalt and Halifax, that their services would not be required on and after the 15th May. I did that so that I, as responsible head of the Naval Service, and my technical officers associated with me, might re-engage only those naval officers, ratings and civilians who possessed the necessary efficiency. Furthermore, my instructions were that only those who were absolutely needed and who possessed the requisite efficiency would be taken on. At the date those orders were issued we had, of naval ratings, 484, and of civilians, 819. Naval officers serving in the Imperial navy and officers and men at the college were not affected by those orders. The naval ratings consisted of 47 officers and 233 men attached to the Niobe at Halifax; 14 officers and 2 men attached to headquarters, and 23 officers, and 107 men attached to the Rainbow at Esquimalt. Of the civilian staff, 376 were employed at Halifax, 203 at headquarters and 240 at Esquimalt. This number has been reduced to 18 naval officers, 25 other ratings and 478 civilians. Therefore, the net reduction affected, both naval and civil, amounts to 782. In other words, I have reduced the personnel of naval officers and other ratings and civilians to the number of 521, as compared with the number of 1,303 naval officers and other ratings and civilians when demobilization orders were issued on March 25. The naval officers and civilians who are now in the employ of the Government are all men who possess the necessary knowledge and efficiency, and we certainly have not two men where only one is necessary.
I wish to refer to the generous gift of the Mother Country to Canada. I am sorry I cannot at the moment mention the name of the new cruiser that the British Government has been good enough to allocate to us, I expect in the course of a day or two
to get the name of that cruiser, but I have been informed by the Admiralty that she will be a modern cruiser, and her armament and speed will be as follows:
Displacement, 4,800 tons.
Length, 453 feet.
Breadth, 47 feet.
Draught, 16 feet, 8 inches.
Speed 25i knots.
Fuel capacity, 1,345 tons coal, 260 tons oil.
Armament, two 6-inch guns, ten 4-inch guns, four 3-pounder guns, four .303 Maxim, two .303 Maxim field guns, one 12-pounder field gun, two torpedo tubes
She will carry a full complement of approximately 20 officers and 384 men, or a total of 404.
The two modern destroyers that were built in 1916 are called the "Patriot" and "Patrician." They are vessels of 1,004 tons displacement:
Length, 271 feet.
Breadth, 27 feet, 6 inches.
Draught, 11 feet.
Speed, 35 knots.
Fuel capacity, 253 tons oil.
Armament, three 4-incli guns, one 2-inch pounder Pom Pom, four torpedo tubes.
They will carry full complements of 6 officers and 74 men, or a total of 80 each.
Some months ago the right hon. the Prime Minister accepted with thanks from the Admiralty the gift of two modem submarines known as H14 and H15. These vessels are of 364 and 434 tons displacement respectively. Their dimensions are as follows: Length, 150 ft. 3 in.; breadth, 15 ft. 9 in.; draught, 12 ft. 4 in; speed, 13 and 11 knots respectively; armanent, 4-18 in. bow tubes. They were built in 1918 and carry full complements of three officers and nineteen men, or a total of twenty-two. The total personnel of the two torpedo destroyers and the two submarines will amount to 608.
I think it might be in order for me to say here that although the Main Naval Estimates provide for an expenditure of only $300,000, the Supplementary Estimates will contain the further sum of $2,200,000, making a total expenditure for naval defence for the present fiscal year of $2,500,000. The reason that only $300,000 appears in the Main Estimates is that the Government were anxious to table the Estimates and our arrangements not being at that time completed with the Admiralty, we did not know just what we would be able to get from them in the way of ships. The House will bear in mind, then, when considering the Naval Estimates, that the total

*3;
expenditures' for the present fiscal year is

ought to take measures to insure that her long coast lines and important seaports, as well as her Merchant marine should he amply protected at all times and against any eventuality.
With these few remarks I now ask that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply to approve of the very modest expenditure of $2,500,000 for the Naval Expenditure for the year which we have entered upon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne) this afternoon is in such striking contrast to the statement made by him when he last addressed this House on the subject, that one finds it a little difficult to know just what the Government really has in mind in the announcement that has been made to-day. I am sure the people of this Dominion got the impression some months ago that the Government meant to do nothing by way of a naval policy until after the Imperial Conference which is to be held in London in 1921. Indeed, in his concluding remarks to-day the minister stated that it was the intention of the Government to do nothing in the way of adopting a permanent naval policy until after the Imperial Conference in 1921. But in the breath immediately preceding the minister told us that the Government had accepted from the British Government, one cruiser, two torpedo boat destroyers and two submarines, involving a personnel of 608 and requiring an outlay of $2,200,000 in addition to the amount which has been submitted in the Estimates for Naval Service. He speaks of this two millions as if it -were of no significance whatever. I find it difficult indeed to regard the acceptance of these ships, involving the personnel mentioned, and their maintenance, as other than an expression of naval policy. If it is not to be regarded as such, then I feel the minister should not come before the House and ask us to vote any money for this purpose.
The acceptance of these ships from the British Government means the adoption at the moment of a policy which is to be maintained, or it is a mere make-believe, for the period of the next year or two. At this, of all times, Parliament has the right to know all details of policy, either temporary or permanent, which the Government may have respecting naval matters.
I shall not attempt at the moment any criticism with respect to the acceptance of this gift beyond mentioning that on these matters Parliament should in

the first instance be consulted. The people of Canada have a right-through their representatives in this Parliament-to say whether or not at this time the country should be committed to an expenditure such as this afternoon the minister has announced we are to be asked to meet. We have this right as a Parliament, and the country should not have been committed to this course by secret negotiations made by the Prime Minister and 'his colleagues during the course of the last year, or the last few months. All that we have been told this afternoon is that negotiations 'have been carried on by the Prime Minister and his colleagues and some members of the British Admiralty. With this comes the announcement that certain commitments have been made by Order in Council in regard to none of which this Parliament has had the slightest intimation.
When the minister brought down 'his Estimates some little time ago they contained an item of $300,000, in connection with Naval Service, providing for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, and at that time he gave the country the impression that the intention of the Government was to reduce naval expenditures, and to reduce them to this very email amount. That impression has gone broadcast through, out the Dominion, and it has been accepted as the expressed view of the Government as to their policy for the present time. Today that whole position is completely reversed, and the minister now announces that in the Supplementary Estimates which are yet to be brought down, an additional expenditure t of o-ver $2,000,000 will be asked for. At the very beginning of the present session we, on this side, asked the Government to inform us, at as early a date as possible, of any matters of public significance which were likely to require the deliberation of Parliament. Certainly there are few questions of greater importance than this one of the Naval Service of the Dominion; and if the Government had intended a programme of this kind, Parliament was -entitled to have knowledge of it, not in the last fortnight of its siirigs but months ago so that there would have been opportunity to debate this question fully.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The leader
of the Opposition will surely recall the fact that on March 24th I officially announced, in the name of the Government, that we were going to carry on the Naval Service of Canada along pre-war lines, and that is exactly what we are doing. The hon. member surely knows that we could not do

that on the sum of $300,000, and I have already explained -why that small sum is asked for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: iLet me say
to the minister, first, that I fail to understand why he presented to Parliament the item which he di$ in the Main Estimates if he had something else in his mind. The only explanation that can b.e given is the one that we on this side have been repeatedly urging as t'he reason for the long delay of the Government in bringing down its Estimates: namely, that matters of great public significance may come to the attention of parliament only in the last few weeks of the session when a large amount of business has to be gotten through with in a great hurry. I think, Mr. Speaker, that a wave of indignation will sweep over this Dominion when the statement goes forth that, now that the war is over, at a time when we are considering in what way we can retrench on naval and military expenditures, and after the professions they have made, the Government have announced a programme involving an expenditure such as that which has been mentioned to-day, and more especially when the country learns that this has been done without Parliament having had any voice in the matter one way or the other. That, Mr. Speaker, is the exception I wish to take at the moment to the programme of the minister and of the Government. I shall, at the moment, say nothing as to whether it is right that Canada should or should not do this or that. I believe that Canada should assist in naval matters-in coast defence and co-operation in other ways-but I say that the country has a right to have its policy determined on the floor of Parliament and not in secret councils of the Cabinet. Certainly in this matter, the Government have shown a complete indifference to the rights of the people, through their representatives in this House, in giving no opportunity whatever for the country to say whether or not these ships shall be accepted, whether or not the expenditures they will involve shall be incurred, whether or not we are to launch upon such a programme at the present time. All that the Government have said is that they have no policy, and will have no policy, until after the Imperial Conference in 1921.
I shall wait until we get into committee to speak further on this subject. At the moment I wish simply to voice what I believe to be the sentiment of public indignation which will be everywhere felt throughout the Dominion when it is learned
that the Government have committed this country, in the matter of naval expenditures, to a programme which they have led the country to believe would not be undertaken at this time, and have placed Parliament in the position of being obliged either to refuse to accept ships which the Government have already accepted-and as the minister has said gratefully thanked the Imperial Government for-or else to undertake a commitment which is only the beginning of the spending of many millions on matters pertaining to naval defence.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Naval- Service-To provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $300,0-00.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me ask the minister this question. He has figured that in the Supplementary Estimates, he would request from Parliament a vote of $2,200,000 in .addition to the $300,000 to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy? The minister of course expects Parliament to vote all the additional amounts that are set forth in t'he Estimates on page 47 in regard to Naval Service, such as hydrographic survey, fisheries protection service, a radiotelegraph service, and the other branches that are mentioned as part of the Naval Service. That is correct, is it not?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I may explain, Mr. Chairman, that this afternoon I was speaking of what should be termed strictly naval expenditures. In addition to the $300,000 mentioned here, there will be a sum of $2,200,000 in the Supplementary Estimates. The Fisheries Branch was, some years ago, under the regime of my predecessor, transferred from the Marine Department to the Naval Service. I am now transferring the Fisheries Branch from the Naval Service back to the Marine Department, and that will take effect on the 1st July next. I am also transferring back to the Marine Department the control of the life-saving stations. . I think that when hon. members are considering the naval expenditure of Canada they ought to consider only this $300,000, and the $2,200,000 which will appear in the Supplementary Estimates, because these other items have really nothing to do with the question o,f our naval force. Even if Gandda did not have a Naval Service, provision would still have to be made for hydrographic survey work, fisheries protection, etc.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These additional expenditures come to about. $1,365,000. Adding the amount the minister has mentioned as being required for the Naval Service would bring the total expenditure under this division close to the $4,000,000 mark.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
reason for all these items being put in under the head of Naval Service? Have members of the Naval Service nothing whatever to do with these other branches?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As I explained a
moment ago, my predecessor, Sir Douglas Hazen, transferred the fisheries' protection service and these other items to the Naval Service. It was felt at the time there was not sufficient work to keep busy those engaged in the Naval Service Department, hence the transfer. I intend now to transfer those branches back to where they more properly belong,-the Marine Department; as the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) suggested some time ago. But the actual naval expenditure, I repeat once more, is only $2,500,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: So the country is now
asked to entirely ignore the announcement which the minister made in the month of March that our naval expenditure would be considerably reduced during the coming year. This announcement, as he himself knows, was received with gratification from one end of the country to the other. During the previous year about $600,000 was expended on the Naval Service proper, and we were told that only $300,000 was to be expended for the current year; and in order to make his announcement still more emphatic the minister declared that he had ordered the

demobilization of the officers and men engaged in our Naval Service. Now we find that not only is there no reduction in the naval expenditure, but, on the contrary, it is to be increased to $2,250,000. And yet no naval policy has so far been announced! Last March in the statement he very carefully made to the House* the hon. minister declared that no naval expenditure would be entered upon until after the Imperial Conference. He did not at that time expect that the Conference would take place before 1921. But now we are confronted with an entirely different official declaration. It is not $300,000 that we are asked to spend on the Naval Service this year, but $2,500,000. And, remember, Mr. Chairman, this is not for any new naval policy at all, it is only an avant-gout of what is going to happen. If $2,500,000 is going to be spent when no naval policy' has been adopted, and when no Imperial Conference has been held, what amount will the minister ask for when the great official Imperial Naval Policy is launched? Then we may have a yearly expenditure of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000.
I said a minute ago that the statement of the minister regarding a reduction in our naval expenditure was received throughout the length and breadth of the country with gratification. Why? Because we are facing the most serious financial exigency in the history of this country. Our national debt is tremendous, and its liquidation is calling upon the people for greater and greater efforts. We are overwhelmed with new taxation of all kinds. Yet at the very time when this burdensome taxation is imposed upon our shoulders, suddenly, in fiat contradiction of what was proclaimed in this House in March, we are asked to spend $2,250,000 on the Naval Service. 1 wish to record my protest against this expenditure. I say that the Government should at least have waited until it had a definite naval policy to place before the country. We remember what happened in 1911. The new government of that day, presided over by the same right hon. gentleman -who is the head of this Government, said: "We will not develop the naval policy of our predecessors in office." The country was with him at that time, everything was stopped. Since 1911 events of tremendous world importance have taken place and the countries of Europe are to-day overburdened with war debts. In these circumstances we were under the impression that we had ample time to develop a naval policy, and we did not expect to embark upon any new naval expenditure. I cannot agree


I960
[Stage Direction]
with the minister in his present action. Let him wait until the Conference has been held, let us see what policy will be proposed, let us get rid of some of this heavy debt that is bearing down upon us, and then we will decide what should be done in regard to naval defence in the interests of Canada and of the Empire.
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My good friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) is as a rule very lucid in his argument, but to-day I do not find him so. On March 25 I made it as clear as I possibly could that the Government had decided not to adopt any permanent naval policy, but to wait the outcome of the Imperial Conference and a declaration by Great Britain on Imperial Naval Policy, and our heavy financial commitments also exerted a strong influence on our decision. I also made it clear that the Government was going to continue the Naval Service along pre-war lines. Listening to my hon. friend, one would think that Canada had never spent more than $600,000 on the Naval Service, but even in 1911-12 I find that the expenditure was $1,790,017.16. If this Government had not done anything whatever but' simply allow the obsolete service to continue, I would now be before the House asking for an expenditure of $2,322,207. Now, for a much improved and much more efficient service we are asking for $2,500,000. From the remarks he has made I take it that my hon. friend (Mr. Boland) is in favour of abolishing the Naval Service; of providing no expenditure whatever for it. We are merely carrying along the service od pre-war lines; we are really not increasing the naval expenditure by one dollar. The Estimate now before us is for an amount less than the cost of maintaining the Canadian Naval Service of pre-war times, having due regard to the differences in wages, the increased cost of provisions, coal, and everything else. Moreover, we are providing for modem ships, efficient in every way. I do not wish to enter into any political controversy with regard- to naval matters, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that in pre-war times wTe were spending over $1,000,000 a year on the Naval Service, and if we were doing nothing more to-day than what we did then we would be spending $2,322,207 on a service that would be almost entirely useless. What good was the Niobe? What good was the Rainbow? We were spending $450,000 a year in keeping the Niobe tied up at the dock at Halifax-


William Duff: Whose fault was that?
Mr. BALLANTYNr,: Will the hon. gentleman allow me? We were spending $250,000 a year to keep the Rainbow tied up.


William Duff: The Rainbow is a good
boat.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend will have ample opportunity later to explain his technical knowledge of naval affairs.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not want to be disagreeable to the minister, but he himself made it plain to the House a moment ago that both the Niobe and the Rainbow rendered splendid service during the war. '


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will not withdraw anything I said about the good service rendered by the Niobe and the Rainbow during the war. But I repeat that they are both obsolete vessels. I find no fault 'with any Government in that regard, but hon. members will agree that ships 'built in 1891 are not modern ships. Both these ships are now in such condition that we could not possibly put them into commission. My hon. friend (Mr. Duff) shakes his head, but I am stating the facts. In view .of the fact that the Government are providing for a more efficient service at not a dollar of increased expenditure over that of pre-war times, I am satisfied that hon. members and the people generally will approve of the Government's policy. But I do not want a wrong impression to prevail. The Auditor General's report may show that $600,000 was spent on the navy for one year, but it must be remembered that the balance of the heavy expenditure that was entailed was charged to demobilization. In 1911, 1912 and 1913 we spent on the Naval Service of Canada more than $1,000,000 a year, and I repeat that having regard to the increased cost of everything we are really make a less expenditure when we ask for $2,500,000 this year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How many officers and men will be in the Naval Service of Canada when the light cruiser, two destroyers and two submarines come into the hands of the Canadian Government? Will more men be employed in the Naval Service than were employed before? I ask the question because I fear that quite involuntarily the minister is leading the country into error when he claims that he will carry the service now outlined for $2,500,000 a year. My impression is that when the year is over and we meet in the next session-if there is no election before that-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There won't be.


Ernest Lapointe: Don't be cocksure.


Henri Sévérin Béland: -the minister will have a large amount of Supplementary Estimates to place before the House. I understand that only the senior officer on the light cruiser is to be obtained from the Old Country; that all the other officers and men will be Canadians and in the pay of the Canadian Government.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: Is that a larger number than the number who previously served in our naval forces?


Mr. MOW  AT@: I do not agree that the announcement made in March with regard to proposed changes effecting a reduction of our naval services was received with satisfaction by the country. It may have been received with satisfaction by those surrounding the hon. member (Mr. Beland), or in his portion of the Dominion, but my impression is that throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion the feeling was distinctly the opposite. The statement that we were not to take our part as a nation; that we were not to support other nations of like mind to ourselves, was received not only with .concern .but with feelings akin to shame by the people. The country has been educated to the idea that Canada should support her own navy. It is not many years since the hon. gentleman's leader, .and at that time my leader, submitted an eloquent argument, backed by many figures and estimates, that we should have a navy of our own. In fact, he actually let contracts for the construction of fast cruisers of the Bristol type, which would have cost much more than the proposals now put forward. The country experienced a feeling of pride that at last Canada was to do her part instead of depending upon another part of the Empire to defend her coasts. But the ^expenditure now proposed is not to be compared with that recommended by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Well, the people got into that frame of mind, and that frame of mind is not to ;be easily changed simply because of the political exigency of a party being in opposition rather than in office. The majority of the people insist upon our adopting a self-respecting naval policy. Here we have a proposal to accept -
from the British Government a cruiser, two destroyers and two submarines, thus keeping alive, until a permanent naval policy for the Dominion can be decided upon, that Naval Service which we should maintain as one of the nations of the British Empire. This will keep in the service those men who are now in the service and who are in those vessels which did excellent service during the war, but which are now undoubtedly obsolete and should be scrapped; whereas if this estimate were to be defeated and the money were not appropriated, those men would all have to be demobilized; they would go into other occupations; they would be lost to the service, and Canada would lose a very great asset. This is merely continuing the policy that we have always had; but instead of having obsolete ships of which we are not at all proud, no matter what good work they did during the war, we shall, with this new service, have modern, up-to-date, efficient ships, on which our men may get training and become better sailors and gunners than any we have had before.
I rise not for the purpose of' discussing the matter in detail, but of protesting against the proposition to whittle away Estimates for a Canadian Navy. Canada is as a whole prepared, not to agree to a proposition of this kind, but to go on and do her part in keeping up the proper defence work of Canada on the high seas, thus preserving her self-respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) referred to what he terms a feeling of shame that swept over the country after the announcement made by the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne) in March last. If there was a feeling of shame, it was that the Government announced at that time that it had no naval policy -whatever, and the country was ashamed of having in power a Government that had no policy on such an important branch of the public administration. When the hon. member contrasted the situation as it was in 1311 with the situation as it is to-' day, he left out of account altogether the one material factor. In 1311 a grave menace through the existence of the German navy faced the world. Lord Jellicoe, who was retained by the Government to report on the naval situation, presented a report, and on page 6 of that report, which I hold in my hand and which has been presented to Parliament, he says:	" The German
menace has now disappeared." The condition as regards naval defence is therefore to-day entirely different from what it was in 1911. The whole situation, from the point

of view both of danger to countries from attack at sea, and the ability of countries to cope with the vast military and naval expenditures, is entirely the opposite of what it was at the time the naval policy was launched. If there be one thing above another that is apparent from what the minister said this afternoon, it. is that the Government was very much to blame after assuming office in 1911 in failing to carry on and carry out the ipolicy inaugurated by the Laurier Administration. When war broke out, if instead of the Niobe and the Rainbow, we had had a fleet on the Atlantic and on the Pacific as was planned under that policy, and as would have been in existence had that policy been carried out, it is difficult to say. what splendid part Canada might not have played on the sea as well as on land in the great war. The minister has given us to-day sufficient evidence to prove that even with the two vessels which were established under the Laurier naval policy, and which would not have been in existence but for that policy, Canada was able to render at sea very material service at a critical time.
The point we are taking exception to this afternoon is not that Canada should do something by way of naval defence. Our criticism is directed against the change of attitude on the part of the Ministry in regard to what Canada should do, and when she should do it. In March last, the minister announced clearly that, owing to the fact that there was to be an Imperial Conference in 1921, it was not desirable to incur large expenditures for naval defence at this time, and concurrently with that announcement by the minister came the Estimates to Parliament indicating a reduction in expenditure from $600,000 to $300,000. The Opposition did not make those reductions. If the amounts do not represent all that the Government expended or intended to expend in the past on naval matters, that is the fault of the minister or his department in drawing up those Estimates. But the inference the country got at that time was that the Government intended to retrench in naval as well as in other matters. Let me read the statement made by the minister on the 25th March, which constitutes the only announcement given out by him. At page 737 of Hansard, the minister is reported as saying:
Before the Orders of the Day are called I desire to make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to naval affairs :
The Government has had under consideration for some time the question of the naval defence of Canada and the suggestion of Admiral Viscount Jellieoe in reference thereto.
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that great Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval policy and of the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home Government and the Overseas Dominions, it has been decided to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
If that paragraph carries any impression with it-[DOT]


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Read on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will do so in a moment. If that paragraph carries any impression with it-and it is the outstanding paragraph in the minister's announcement-it is that Canada has heavy financial *commitments at the present time; that Great Britain has no permanent naval policy; that next year there is to be a conference at which a policy will be decided upon, and that in the meantime the Government will defer adoption of any permanent policy in Canada. I contend that the acceptance of a cruiser, two torpedo boat destroyers and two submarines is evidence of a policy. The minister cannot say that no policy is . involved in the acceptance of those ships, which will mean the support of a complement of 600 or 700 men, in addition to all that is required in equipment and administration. If the Ministry have a policy for a Canadian Naval Service, let them state it to Parliament and let us act accordingly; but the minister says: "We have no policy at the present time; we are going to have a policy in 1921." What we say is:	"The situation financially being
what it is in the world to-day and the danger as regards attacks at sea being what it is, we can well afford during the period of one year to keep the figures of naval expenditure at the estimate at which the minister has indicated they would be kept.
The minister asked me to read the balance of his statement. It is as follow?
The Government has decided to carry on the Canadian Naval Service along pre-war lines and has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers to take the place of the present obsolete and useless training ships, the Niobe and Rainbow.
The disposition there is on pre-war lines. In other words, the Rainbow and Niobe were used simply as training ships to train a few men without involving very great expenditure or a very large personnel. Can the minister tell me what the personnel on those two ships was before the war?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We had 784 naval ranks and ratings and 321 civilians, or 1,105



all told. I should like to draw the hon. gentleman's atention to the fact that with this improved service we purpose having only 608 naval ratings and 478 civilians.


Henri Sévérin Béland: About the same number.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask whether in addition to the personnel of these ships, the staffs that will be required for the Naval colleges and the like will add considerably in numbers to the appointments to the Naval Servcie?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have in the Naval College 12 officers and 46 men, a total of 58.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Had the minister in mind, at the time he made this statement, the addition of this cruiser, the two torpedo boat destroyers, and the two submarines, and their maintenance with this personnel?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I certainly had in mind and the 'Government certainly had in mind a complete reorganization of the Naval 'Service, but we had not at that time completed our arrangements as we have announced them to-day. I had informed the Government that it was absolutely necessary to reorganize our Naval Service which was in a most inefficient state.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wanted to know was whether the minister and the Government had in mind, as an outcome of that reorganization, that during the present year this cruiser and the two torpedo -boat destroyers and the two .submarines would become a part of the Canadian Naval Service and would have to be maintained as such?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will refeT to Admiral Jellicoe's report he will see that the minimum scheme placed before the Government involved an expenditure of $10,000,000 extending over a number of years up, I think, to 1925 or 1927. Admiral Jellicoe states in that report that the ships will be a gift to the Canadian Government. Inasmuch as the Government could not see its way clear to incur such heavy expenditure, we had to re-open negotiations with the Admiralty to see if we could get the one cruiser and the two destroyers, and when I made my announcement on Alarch 25 those negotiations had not been completed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That must be incorrect because in his announcement the minister says that the cruiser and the tor-
[Mr. Ballantyne.I
pedo boat destroyers have been accepted. Here are his words:
The Government has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We had at that moment actually accepted the offer but we had not received word from the Admiralty that we were going to get the ships.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Surely they would keep their word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister could hardly accept a gift that had not been made. The Government must have had the gift made to it before it could accept it. The point I am somewhat concerned about at the moment is that if the ministry had in contemplation this naval unit or. whatever one may choose to call it, why was it that in the Estimates subsequently submitted, an appropriation was not presented to Parliament for this larger expenditure? Can the minister answer that question?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot add anything to what I have stated in my remarks this afternoon. On Alarch 25 we did not know what the actual expenditure was going to be. It is true that the Government had accepted the ships, but we had not heard from the Admiralty. The Admiralty, through Admiral Jellicoe, offered us certain ships providing we adopted a programme that would cost this country annually not less than $10,000,000. We did not see our way to embarking on such an expenditure, and we said that we were prepared to take one cruiser and two destroyers but at that date we did not know that that would be agreeable to the Admiralty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister announced this afternoon that the Prime Minister himself had accepted the two submarines previously. Why was no mention made of that?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is easily explained. The two submarines had been accepted quite a number of months previously. When the Prime Minister was in England these two submarines were lying at Bermuda, and they were offered to Canada, the offer being made personally to the Prime Minister when he was in London, and they were accepted by him. I will find out the exact date, but I should imagine it was six or eight months before we accepted the cruisers and the destroyers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If they had already been accepted by the Prime Minister, why did not the minister mention them in making his statement to the House. To-day is the first time the country has been informed that these two submarines had been accepted, in addition to these two torpedo boat destroyers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think it must be clear to every one and to the leader of the Opposition that when I made the statement that the Government were going to carry on on pre-war lines, it meant that we were going to ask for the same expenditure that had been asked for in pre-war years. Nothing could be clearer than that. I certainly did not mislead the House in any way. If I had not stated 'that the Government were going to carry on along pre-war lines, my hon. friend might have been justified in coming to the conclusion he apparenly has come to, tout when I stated that we would carry along on prewar lines, it meant that the expenditure would be the same as in pre-war years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had no cruiser in pre-war times, and we had no submarines or torpedo boat destroyers. We had a couple of training ships. The minister completely evades my question as -to why he did not announce to the House on March 25 that the Prime Minister had accepted these two ships. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister, notwithstanding the great powers that he has as Prime Minister, should feel free .to accept a couple of submarines on behalf of this country without conferring with his colleagues in the Ministry in regard to such an acceptance. I think that is an exercise of power that is scarcely warranted. In the same way I think the acceptance of a cruiser and a couple of torpedo boat destroyers, in addition to these two submarines, without ever asking Parliament whether such a gift should be accepted, is going very far beyond what the Governor in Council or the Prime Minister and his colleagues should have gone in a matter which commits the country to such vast expenditures.
To conclude the minister's statement on the Naval policy, he went on:
The Minister of Naval Service, in order to be free to thoroughly reorganize and place the present service on an economical and efficient basis, has issued orders for the demobilization of all officers and naval ratings and for the discontinuance of civilian help at headquarters and at the Naval Dockyards in Esquimau and Halifax. The Canadian officers who are in the Imperial fleet and who are now being paid by the 223J
Canadian Government wilf be recalled and placed on duty with the Canadian Naval Service. The Naval College will also he continued. After reorganization has been completed, only those officers and other ratings and civilians will be taken on who are absolutely necessary and possess the qualifications desired.
I submiit that any person reading that statement and without having any knowledge of what had been secretly arranged by the minister in advance would get the impression that the Government intended beween that time and the time the permanent policy was decided upon to get along on as 6mall an expenditure as possible, reducing the personnel to as small a margin as possible, and that before anything in the nature of a permanent policy was adopted Parliament would be informed of what the Government's intentions were. That., I submit, is the lea^t that was owing to Parliament and ,to the people of Canada.
I do not think we should he asked at this time-in view of the attitude which the country has been led to. believe would govern the situation,-I do not think we should be asked on a few minutes' notice to vote $2,000,000 over and above anything " that is already dn the main Estimates, and for something that is over and above anything so far suggested in regard to the Naval Service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stand by the Laurier naval policy and I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Marine for having in spite of the bad company surrounding him remained faithful to that policy. I have noticed that his policy, which was Sir Wilfrid Lauriers was supported this afternoon only by one Liberal Unionist, and he the gentleman representing the seamen of Park-dale (Mr. Mowat). I did not notice that there was any particular enthusiasm display by the old crew-the old Tory party which in 1911 and since combatted so vehemently the "Laurier disloyal policy," as they called it, and which is now presented to the country by the Minister of the Naval Affairs in the Unionist Government, as the salvation of Canada and of the British Empire.
I stand by the Laurier naval policy in normal times. In 1911 I defended it, I risked my political life in its support, but the Liberal party was defeated on that policy through the alliance of a jingo party with the Nationalist party. I abide by the verdict of the Canadian people. We were informed by the old Government, that a new policy would be launched and that it would be submitted to the people. Mr. Chairman, we know what happened. In 1913 the Premier came before Parliament with a new

naval programme consisting of a proposed gift to the Admiralty of three dreadnaughts. By the way, dreadnaughts are quite discarded to-day. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right in 1913 when he told the Government that the best naval experts of Great Britain were opposed to the construction of these dreadnaughts. But, let that pass and let us come to the point.
I said a moment ago that I stood by the Naval Act of 1910, which was defeated at the polls in 1911, that in 1913 a new policy was propounded but nothing came of it because the Senate of Canada, led at the time by the ex-Prime Minister of Ontario, iSir George Ross, brought the Government to its senses, reminding them that there was on the statute book a Naval Act which had not yet been repealed. The war came along, and now that it is over, when Canada is facing financial liabilities to the amount of nearly three billion dollars, the conditions are not normal and whilst I was in favour of the Laurier policy which was defeated at the polls in 1911, I am perfectly logical [DOT]* in stating that I cannot stand for it to-day, in view of the heavy financial commitments of the country. The amount is not very large-$2,700,000-and even if it were larger, I have enough confidence in the business sense, and honesty of purpose of the minister to say that under qrdinary circumstances I would leave to him the free expenditure of that money. But $2,700,000 for naval expenditures is not needed to-day after the victory which was achieved by the Allies on the sea as well as on the land in 1918. That $2,700,000 with $5,000,000, which we voted the other evening for the Royal Mounted Police, -which is not needed in central Canada, and for militia, makes nearly $8,000,000. $8,000,000 might go far towards paying the widows and orphans of our gallant soldiers who died at the front, and towards defraying the Pension Bill. I call the attention of ,my fellow members who know what the hardships of the people are, to the fact that the only policy with the people of Canada to-day is one of, retrenchment. Where can that retrenchment be made if not in the Militia and Naval Service Departments?
We have no fear to-day. If there was one fact which was pre-eminent in the war it was the superiority of the British Navy. And if ever there was a black Friday for our enemy, Germany, it was when she surrendered her navy to the British Fleet in the midst of the ocean. The German navy was ignominiously wiped out. Therefore, where is the enemy on the seas to be

faced by the British Navy? A moment ago my hon. friend, quoting the words of the Rt. Hon. Walter Long, said that the only country in the world which could pretend to be a rival of Great Britain in so far as a navy is concerned was the American Republic. Does any one in this House seriously believe that we shall have in the future to fear the enmity of the United States? Sir, every statesman of Great Britain has declared over and over again in the last thirty years, to my certain knowledge, that in their computations of expenditure of the British Navy they have always put aside the contingency of war with the United States of America. There is to-day, an spite of the usual election lion tail-twisting, a real, a true, a sincere friendship, between the AnglonSaxon peoples both of the United States and of the Mother Couptry. There is no peril, there is no danger, there is no necessity to-day for even the expenditure mentioned by my hon. friend. On the contrary there is an urgent necessity to cut dawn expenditure in order to put Canada on her feet again because she is burdened with such financial commitments that it would take her many long years before she can compete successfully with the other nations of the world. Besides Mr. Chairman, we have manfully done our share for the Mother Country, and we should not come Vith this picayune tribute of $2,200,000 a year to the British Exchequer. My hon. friend a moment ago spoke of a patrol on the Pacific Ocean.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Atlantic ocean.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and my hon. friend mentioned the Pacific ocean, too. He knows that on the Atlantic ocean we have nothing to fear. With respect to the Pacific ocean the treaty with Japan is about to ibe renewed; and I understand that to Australia has been assigned by the Mother Country the duty of patrolling a certain zone in that ocean. At all events, Mr. Chairman, the treaty with Japan is to he renewed very shortly, and we have no reason to entertain fear on that score. The minister said that he meant to administer this Naval Act according to -the principles of local autonomy which are embodied in it. I am afraid, from a certain remark which he let slip, during his speech this afternoon, that the true Canadian spirit has not yet penetrated his mind! ;cam(pletely. Jf he -means to administer this Act according to Canadian views, and Canadian ideals- not rejecting at all the idea of co-operation with the Mother Country in case of emergency, because the Naval Act of 1910 speci-

fies that-my hon. friend has paid his respects to the Navy League of Canada. Well, I know the gentlemen who are the sponsors of the various branches of the Navy League in Canada. They are respectable and well meaning gentlemen hut they are not the friends olf Canadian autonomy- they are not Canadians, first, last and always. From the circular letter which I received the other day, from Mr. Aeanilius Jarvis, President of the Navy League in Toronto, that gentleman does not dream of a .Canadian Navy. He dreams olf a tribute for the Imperial Navy paid for by Canada. That is what he dreams of; and when my hon. friend pays such compliments to the Navy League, I am afraid that the Laurier navy may be used by him as a weapon which might serve the Imperialist cause.
Mr. Chairman, has my hon. friend thought very seriously of what he is doing this afternoon? He has laid down a policy which was denounced by one whom he should respect-whom all of us in this House should respect-as being "absurd, unworkable, dangerous and revolutionary."


Ernest Lapointe: Who said that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is propounding a naval policy which As "absurd, unworkable, dangerous and revolutionary." Now, whoever uttered those words? My hon. friend may say, " I belong to a different Government. This is a Unionist Government, and I am not responsible for the old Tory Government. I am a Unionist minister, and therefore I represent only Unionist principles." But my hon. friend cannot disassociate himself from the right hon. gentleman to whom I refer, whether the latter is Prime Minister in a Unionist Cabinet or was Prime Minister in a Tory Cabinet. It is the same Sir Robert Laird Borden to whom I have reference-it is the same individual, and the same personality, and we cannot allow him to change his mind as it pleases him to change it on such a vital issue. Now, in 1911 when this policy -which is adopted by my hon. friend as the policy of the Unionist Government- was presented to the country by the late lamented (Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was denounced by the present Prime Minister-then the leader of the Opposition-as being " absurd, unworkable, dangerous and revolutionary." Well, Sir, I am surprised to see such a peaceful, law-abiding citizen-


Ernest Lapointe: Such a Christian.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -as my hon. friend the Minister of Marine-who did his share in
the great war for the Empire and the Mother Country-I am surprised that he should come before the House and forward a policy which was denounced by his present leader as being, " absurd, unworkable, dangerous and revolutionary." Surely he will have to explain the process -by which he has been able to alter the views of the right hon. gentleman. And besides, X might recall to my hon. friend the fact-that his leader olf to-day solemnly stated in years gone by that no naval policy of' any kind-least of all the Laurier naval policy which my hon. friend accepts today-should go into force without first-being submitted to the people of Canada-Now, Sir, on February 3, 1910, on the motion for the third reading of the Bill which is now the Naval Act, Sir Robert Borden, then Mr. R. L. Borden, said:
I am as strong as any man in this country in the belief that it is the duty of Canada to participate upon a permanent basis in the defence of this Empire and to do our reasonable share in that regard, hut X say that to attempt to force a policy of this kind upon the people of this country without giving them an opportunity to say yea or nay with regard to it would be one of the worst mistakes that could be made by any man really favoured that policy.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated a moment ago, that very policy was defeated at the polls in 1911. Our Canadian Navy was frowned down by the albpowerful Tories of 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914. Then it was suddenly taken up as, after all, the best means of protection for our sea-coast during the war, and it accomplished something. As evidence of that we have had the very words of my hon. friend this afternoon. Now, it has been found so adaptable to Canada that my hon. friend presents it as being the policy of the Government.
But what regard has the Government for the sacred rights of the people? What does my hon. friend from Perth whom I see before me just now, think of his Tory Government accepting the policy which he denounced with such vehemence during the campaign of 1911? Then the Simon-pure Tory candidates promised that no Buch policy would ever be adopted by Parliament unless the people of Canada were consulted. Well, the people have never been consulted, and we have this show-because it is nothing else hut a show-where can be seen the various ministers of 1911, 1912 and 1913, making the somersaults I have been describing.
I expect to hear from my stern unbending Tory friends on this question. Were they sincere in 1911 when they denounced the

Laurier naval policy as being un-British and disloyal, and as being the first step towards separation from the Mother Country? Were the leaders of the Tory party sincere? They have since joined hands with the Liberal-Unionists, and it seems to me that the latter are "putting one over" their Tory friends to-day. Listen to the hon. Minister of Naval Service, who is so proud to carry out the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Listen to the echo, from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) saying, "Amen; that is my policy, that is the policy I defended in 1911." But what are the real Tories thinking, what are they saying? 1 want to hear from them to know if they were in earnest in 1911?


Mr. BUBNHAM:: I do not think I ever heard a speaker who so thoroughly answered and confuted himself as the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Lemieux) He has completely boxed the compass and taken up every phase of the question, always returning to the fact that this is a continuance of the Laurier policy, which he now condemns. This policy, which he insists is a continuation of the Laurier policy, he objects to being continued on the ground of retrenchment. He therefore disowns his own child and ignores his own relatives-and I do not blame him. In the past we said: "That is exactly what the Laurier policy will lead to"; we said it would lead to a continuance and an expansion of expense and pretention, which was absurd and would be ineffective. And we are now "up against it." I do not think that any one will deny that, if it were not for the exigencies of the situation, there would be the least excuse for going on with such an Estimate as this-not the slightest. During that long-distance naval debate we insisted that the Empire was an empire, our object being to show that we should not have a series of fleets, but one great Empire fleet, and that we would assume whatever our portion of the cost of that fleet was adjudged to be and build and develop it accordingly. The Laurier policy, founded upon the Naval Service Act, pre-supposed that we were not in the Empire at all, that when We said we were in the Empire we would be in it, but in the meantime we were out of it, and that it would be better for us to go on and build our own fleet with complete equipment from beginning to end. Then-as we predicted-when a heavy burden like the present would come upon us we would have this absurd display to keep up, or else we would fall into disgrace and contempt. It is possible at the present

time to annihilate this Estimate. How? By annihilating the, idea o,f the Laurier fleet. That is what you are pleading for, and yet you call us inconsistent. We are simply saying that we are marking time, waiting for the development of a naval policy which will be declared next year. And if I thought the Government at the present time were asking for this expenditure with any other idea than marking time, I would vote against it. But I know they are only marking time in order that later we may develop a proper Imperial nav.al policy.
The Laurier naval policy, if it had been carried out, and if we were in power now- as we are-would demand not $2,700,000, but more likely $20,700,000. The people of this country are grateful to the old Tory party, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) has said, for preserving them from an absurdity that can only be likened to the well-known fable of the frog which, being determined to blow itself to the size of the bull, blew itself up altogether.


William Duff: The Minister of Naval
Affairs this afternoon made a very important statement on naval matters. Like myself, he does not know anything about the technical side of naval affairs, and I would not have referred to his ignorance except for the fact that he taunted ime a few minutes ago with my absolute lack of knowledge of naval technique. But I think, Sir, that I can perhaps deal with the situation in Canada in respect to naval matters as well as the Minister of Naval Affairs, and if I may be permitted I would like for a few minutes to discuss this very important question.
I want to say, first, that I think it is due to this House that after the minister made this very important statement on naval affairs he should have moved that the committee report progress on this item of the Estimates so as to give hon. members a chance to study his statement. I am waiting to see if the minister will do so now. As he has not seen fit to accept my suggestion, I presume I will have to go on.
There is bound to be a difference of opinion in this country as to whether or not a naval policy should be adopted by Canada. We heard the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) say that when Parliament and the people were told in March that the Government did not propose to go on with a naval policy there was a feeling of relief all over the country; and we also heard the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) dispute

that statement and say that the people wanted a naval policy. While perhaps in that part of the country from which the hon. member for Parkdale comes that sentiment may prevail, yet I assert-and I say it with all modesty-that perhaps there is no hon. gentleman who in the past 18 months has received so much correspondence in regard to naval matters as I have; and there is perhaps very good reason for that being the case. Prom every part of this country,

from Toronto- and other cities; from most of the important towns of Canada; from the Pacific coast; from the Atlantic coast; from clergymen, lawyers, doctors and every other class of citizens, I have received letters with regard to -the Canadian Navy, expressing the view that it would not 'be good business, that it would not be dn the interests of the country, to- spend one dollar on Naval Services 'at the present time. I -do not wish to occupy unduly the time of the -committee in this connection, -but perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Mowat) will listen to something which comes from his own city-Toronto. Here is what the Toronto Saturday Night says:
Sir Robert Borden has started on what may be termed a world tour with Admiral Viscount Jellicoe, which has been subjected to interruption, but no doubt it was intended to enter into discussions from which some plan would be forthcoming with suggestions that Australia, South Africa and Canada participate. What plans the Admiral has in mind is, of course, yet unknown, but it all brings up the question as to whether or not any satisfactory plans as regards a definite naval programme could be devised at this time.
First of all, if this League of Nations is worth a whoop, which a good many of us are now inclined to doubt, navies of any size will be unnecessary. But more important is the fact that authorities cannot agree among themselves as to what should constitute a naval force under changed conditions. Five years ago there would have been arguments between these gentlemen as to the proper number of battleships as compared with cruisers, cruisers vs. small craft, and so on down the line. Now, however, the argument has got out of the sea and into the air. Sir Percy Scott, for one, declares the battleship is dead and gone, gone indeed previous to the opening of the late war. Why build battleships, says the Admiral, at a cost of say forty million dollars each, when for the same sum many aeroplane-carrying ships, equipped with aeroplanes, each ship carrying explosives in amount equal to that contained on a battleship, could be had. In the opinion of Sir Percy Scott this class of craft would be far the most effective with the added recommendation that plane-carrying ships could be well utilized in peace times as every day, traders, conveying passengers in place of bombs.
Admiral Fisher for his part favours the development of the submarine, which, with the further development of the flying boat will unquestionably be a great factor in future naval engagements if we are unfortunate enough to have any.
All this brings up the point as to what Admiral Jellicoe is likely to recommend for us, though it goes without saying that we do not necessarily have to follow the Admiral's recommendations, no matter what they may happen to be. And if these recommendations follow old traditional lines we may pass them all up. There is no need for Canada to hurry along in such a matter; indeed, there are many questions which are better suited for discussion at the next session of 'Parliament than a definite naval policy for Canada. The best thing Union Government can do is to leave it alone.
Now, let us see what the Prime Minister says in regard to- a naval policy at this time. In the month of December last a deputation composed of representatives of -the Navy League of Canada c-ame to Ottawa to -interview the Government. I will not read the whole of the report which I have before roe, -but here are some of the things that the Prime Minister said:
In reply Sir Robert Borden acknowledged the public spirit and loftiness and purpose that animated the members of. the Navy League of Canada, and complimented them on the patriotic work they are accomplishing.
I may say here that the Navy League asked the Prime 'Minister what- he thought we should do in Canada with regard to naval matters. This report continues:
He called the delegates' attention to the fact that his stand on the naval question had been made public some years ago, and that Interim developments had not caused him to revise the opinions he had expressed at the time.
Now, Sir, we all know what the Prime Minister's stand on the naval question was. He thought that the people of Canada should icontritoute $35,000,000 towards a centralized British navy; he did not want a navy for this country. In December last the Prime Minister reiterated that statement. He practically .said that we did not want a Canadian navy; that he stood by -his old policy, which was to give money to the British Government in connection with their navy. Kef-erring further to the Prime Minister's remarks on this occasion the report says:
The question to solve is one of finance. Sir Robert spoke of Canada's tremendous commitments, the heavy drafts on the country's revenue to meet the interests of war costs, the payment of pensions and other obligations arising out of the war.
Evidently the Government then had no intention to make any expenditures on account of naval services this year.
Let us go a little further. As the Minister of Naval Affairs has pointed out, we had the pleasure and the honour of a visit from Admiral Viscount Jellicoe of Scapa. With

others I had the pleasure of listening to a speech delivered by him at Halifax at a dinner *which was tendered him there. I was more than pleased when during the course of his speech he practically said, though he did not specifically mention the Laurier navy policy, that the only navy which would suit Canada was a navy along the line of that proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910.
Lord Jellicoe, after investigating conditions in this country, made a report. It was .current talk that the Minister of Naval Affairs intended to accept the report of Lord Jellicoe .and to introduce into .the House new legislation or sufficient) Estimates to provide a navy along the lines suggested in that report. The moment this announcement went out in the press protests came in from all parts of Canada, to Conservative and to Liberal members alike, denouncing the policy laid down by Lord Jellicoe. It is well known what happened when we came here in March. Of course, what goes on in caucus is secret, and as I was not at the Conservative caucus to. which I am about to refer I cannot speak with authority as to what happened, though in a moment I will read what a certain gentleman said who was at the caucus. But it was common talk around the corridors, about the city and in the newspaper press that the Minister of Naval Affairs wanted the Conservative caucus to accept the report of Lord Jellicoe and to provide for a navy along the lines suggested, but that the minister was turned down good and hard. Now, let us see what the Halifax Herald says about that, a paper published by a member of the other House, Senator Dennis.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What'are his polities?


William Duff: Oh, he is a good Tory. Here is what he says:
The demobilization of the Canadian Naval Service follows a decision of the Unionists caucus held recently, at which, it is stated, the plans of Admiral Jellicoe looking to the establishment of a Canadian Navy were turned down in a decisive manner by those present.
The attitude of the caucus and the decision of the Government to demobilize the Naval Service means that Canada will lose a fleet of ships valued at pre-war figures at ? 16,500,000.
I assume (that he refers here to the ships which the British Government offered to this country. He says also-because there is no doubt that the despatch from Ottawa which follows, published in the Halifax Herald, was written by the Senator from Halifax to whom I have referred:

Ottawa, March 23.-House proceedings are completely dwarfed by interest in the Government's decision to scrap the Canadian navy.
While no. official explanation of the action taken has been offered, 'it is known that the order does not represent merely a departmental decision, but is the considered policy of the entire Cabinet.
In the absence of an official announcement the view in Parliamentary and near-Cabinet circles is that the order is based on three considerations :
1.	That the existing naval organization is useless for purposes of defence, and that consequently all money for its upkeep, (the amount is about $6-00,000 annually) is absolute waste:
2.	That all the time when the country is facing a financial stringency challenging the most rigid economy, expenditure of money for all futile purposes is indefensible; and
3.	That the action taken, merely ridding the country of a lot of junk, does not prejudice, hinder or delay any further naval policy that may be decided upon in the light of subsequent events.
These considerations, beyond question, weigh very heavily with the overwhelming majority in Parliament. The Maritime members (including British Columbia as well as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), of course, are not inclined to be jubilant over any proposal with slightest suspicion of being "anti-navy", .as they are confirmed believers in strong Canadian naval defence, but they realize that it is useless to breast the strong tide for economy and retrenchment which is sweeping through Parliament at the present time.
Also, there is this consideration, that rightly or wrongly, the suspicion prevails that the personnel of the existing naval organization, with some few notable exceptions, did not represent the high level of capacity and that any policy that will rid the country of such service is not to be lightly condemned.
That is what the Halifax Herald says as regards what the Government purpose doing..
In order to show the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) is not alone in his attitude on this matter, I will read from another newspaper known as the Halifax Chronicle. In April last the Halifax Chronicle in a leading editorial, discussed an editorial which appeared in the Manchester Guardian, of Manchester, England. I will no' Tead the whole of the article, which says in part:
However desirable the possession of a considerable naval organization' may be for the Dominion ready to co-operate in case of need with the British navy, it must be faced with the urgent question-"Can we afford it?" Everybody admits that these are times for shortening, not spreading, national as well as individual sail. "Industry and Thrift" are the watchwords of the hour. Canada has incurred an enormous, not to say crushing, public debt through the war. It promises to be a continuing problem of the utmost difficulty, as far ahead as can now be seen, to secure sufficient revenue to pay interest on our indebtedness and pay for the bare necessities of Government. Could we, with

any justice to ourselves or those who are to come after us, consent to the assumption of large additional burdens which are not absolutely urgently imperative?
I think I have said enough to prove to the hon. member for Parkdale and other hon. members, that the hon. member for Beauce is not alone in his attitude and that throughout the length and breadth of Canada the same sentiment prevails. Even the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) is not in favour of naval expenditure. All he seems to be afraid of is that we have to vote this $2,500,000 because we have this, what he calls the Laurier navy on our hands. My 'hon. friend evidently was not in the House about an hour ago when the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne) distinctly told us that he had scrapped the Laurier navy; that he was putting it up for sale toy tender and contract, and that he intended to sell it. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why my hon. friend, if he is opposed to naval expenditures, cannot vote against the expenditure of every dollar of this $2,500,000. There is no question that the country cannot afford to expend this amount, and it is not necessary to expend it. What do we find? I am sorry I can not read the minister's exact words, and the reason I wanted the committee to rise and report progress was in order that I might not misquote the minister in any particular. I have to go on from memory. What did the minister say about the ships which he is going to accept from the British Government? What part will they play in the defence of this country in case of war with the United States or any other country? In his statement made some two months ago, the minister said:
The Government has decided to carry on tha Canadian Naval Service along pre-war lines and has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers to take the place of the present obsolete and useless training ships, the Niobe and Rainbow.
This afternoon he went further; he told us that this gift which he was going to accept from the British Government consisted of one cruiser, if I remember rightly, of 4,600 tons. The Minister of Naval Affairs might consider a cruiser of 4,600 tons an up-to-date cruiser, but I do. not think any one who has a knowledge of naval affairs will consider a cruiser of 4,600 tons is much of a gift after all. In our country we would call her only a boat, but I suppose the minister knows so much about naval matters that he would call her an up-to-date cruiser. He also told us that the British Government had been pleased to give them two
torpedo boat destroyers. if I remember rightly, of about 1,000 tons, and in addition to these two little cruisers we were to get two submarines from the British Government. How thankful we should be that the British Government is to give us these vessels! Before I forget, I might state that the minister said that he intends to use these destroyers and submarines in fishery protection work. The minister is surely mistaken in making such a statement, and I am surprised that he should have made it. How is he going to use submarines or destroyers in fishery protection work?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Will the hon. member explain how we cannot use them?


William Duff: I might state that I have
quite as many rights in this House as the Minister of Naval Affairs has. I understood that we were not to interrupt him when he was making his speech this afternoon, and I would ask him to be good enough not to interrupt me. I will tell the minister how he cannot use submarines in fishery protection work. Perhaps he does not know that submarines are undersea boats; they are supposed to go under water. If the minister intends the submarines to locate schools of mackerel or codfish, they cannot do it unless glass frames are placed in front of the submarines instead of the usual plates, so that the sailors can see the fish as they pass along under the water.
What advantage are these little boats going to be to the people of Canada for naval defence? The minister told us that the Niobe was about 8,000 tons and that would be about twice the size of this little cruiser which he is going to accept from the British Government. As the minister was very positive in stating that the Niobe is obsolete, I want to make a comparison between the Niobe, the Rainbow and other ships, such as the Hochelaga, Canada and others, which the Government has at present, and, if you like, Sir Richard McBride's submarines on the Pacific coast, with the boats the Government is going to get from the British Government. I believe the submarines Sir Richard McBride bought are just as good as the ones we are getting now. The Niobe and the Rainbow are just as good boats for training purposes as the cruisers and the two destroyers of which the British Government is going to make us a present. If I remember correctly, at the time the Niobe was purchased, it was understood that [DOT] she was to be used as a nucleus for a Canadian navy and for training purposes, and when the Liberal Government went out of power in 1911, the

Niobe was being used for that purpose. She was well looked after, well equipped as regards both men and machinery, and she was ready at any time to proceed to sea. Shortly after the Conservative Government came into power, the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries adopted the deliberate policy of allowing the Niobe to go into disuse and disrepair, with the result that when war broke out only a few caretakers were on board the Niobe; her engines and boilers had rusted, and it was six weeks after war was declared before she could go to sea. I say it is a disgrace to the Government and to the Minister of the Naval Service of that day that such a condition of affairs should have existed. If the Niobe had been ready to proceed to sea the day war was declared she would have captured sufficient prizes to pay the cost of war to Canada for the first year. The same thing was true of the Rainbow on the Pacific coast. Instead of being ready to proceed to sea as soon as war was declared, she took weeks to get ready. In spite of the fact that the 'Conservative Government and the previous Minister of the Naval Service allowed the Niobe's and Rainbow's engines and boilers to rust, there is no doubt that the Niobe did good work during the war, as long as they kept her boilers in condition, patrolling the New York and the Newfoundland coasts. -At the time she was put out of commission there was nothing wrong with her. All she needed was to have her boilers re-tubed and a few slight repairs. As far as her hull and machinery are concerned, she would do just as good service as a training ship as the boats the minister purposes to take from the Old Country What service can these new boats we are acquiring give us? The minister told us he intended to use them both on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. While, of course, it is quite true that now-a-days in view of the construction of the Panama canal it will not take so long for a cruiser to get from Halifax to Vancouver as it did in the old days when she would have had to go around the Horn, it seems to me a rather strange thing for the minister to say that he is going to protect our 7,000 miles of coast line by taking this cruiser and these two torpedo boat destroyers from one coast to the other as the occasion requires. There is no doubt at alL that these boats are absolutely useless for defence. No man [DOT] thinks they can be used for protection so far as war is concerned. If war were to break out any time within the next ten years they would be absolutely useless. There is another point. If the Niobe is obsolete, as 
the minister says, how many years will it be 'before this cruiser and these torpedo boat destroyers are obsolete? Everybody knows that in the Navy a new cruiser is considered obsolete within five years and the boats the minister is accepting from the British Government if- they are not obsolete to-day-I think he said they were built in 1916-will be obsolete any time from 1921 on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before we
take recess may I suggest to the minister that as the main naval item is the Supplementary Estimate of $2,200,000, and this item is only $300,000, he allow this item to stand until the 'Supplementary Estimate is before us. That will give us an opportunity to discuss this whole question. There is very little sense in passing now an item of $300,000, if later on vre shall be asked to consider an item of $2,200,000. I think the minister should let this item stand in the meantime.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand the hon. member for Lunenburg has not yet completed his remarks.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There are also a few other speakers on this side of the House.


William Duff: 'I am quite ready to defer
the debate until the Supplementary Estimate is before us. I think the members should also have the opportunity of reading the minister's statement before they can be expected to discuss this matter intelligently. I think the proper thing would be for the committee to rise and report progress.
At Six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In view of the request of the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Lunenburg that we allow this item to stand until hon. members have had an opportunity to read what I said this afternoon, I am quite agreeable to do that and to take up the Fisheries Estimates.


William Duff: If the minister has been good enough to agree to my suggestion I am quite satisfied that the debate should be deferred for the present although I am ready to go on.
Item stands.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol service, and oyster culture, $710,'00'0.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the increase for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The increase of $110,000 is made up as follows: Extension of the service, $9,120 and steam patrol boats that we have to purchase $70,000, making $79,120. For reclassification we have put in $25,860; reorganization, $2,120; and unforeseen expenses, $2,900; making $110,000.


William Duff: What is the necessity for more boats if the minister is going to use the new navy for fisheries patrol service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not wish to return to naval affairs but I was talking about fisheries protection this afternoon. The policy of the department is for the present that in British Columbia, cannery, purse seine, gill net and fishing licenses of all kinds are to be thrown open. That being so, it is necessary for the Government to adopt more rigid regulations and to have [DOT]closer supervision by the inspectors out there. Therefore, it is necessary to ask for $70,000 to provide extra boats to enable our officials to go over that vast territory and see that overfishing does not occur.


William Duff: How many patrol boats have you on the Pacific coast?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On the Pacific, 20; on the Atlantic, 16; and on lake Winnipeg, 1.


Frank S. Cahill: How many new boats are being bought?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Three new boats that are for use in connection with the British Columbia fisheries.


William Duff: I cannot understand why you should be building or purchasing several new boats for this particular purpose when you have twenty patrol boats on the Pacific. Twenty boats would cover a great amount of territory, and I do not see why you should require any more.


Mr. MARTIN:: If the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is only speaking to the minister across the House we might as well go out because we cannot hear a word.


William Duff: I was not the architect of this Chamber. If I had been I wquld have arranged for a shorter Chamber so that the hon. member for Halifax (Mir. Martin) could hear my voice as well as I can hear his.


Peter Francis Martin: You have lots of lung power; speak up.


William Duff: I was saying to the minister, and I think the hon. member for Halifax
will agree with me, that we should not spend one dollar more than is necessary in order to patrol the waters of the Pacific or Atlantic. The minister tells us that he has already twenty patrol boats on the Pacific coast.


Peter Francis Martin: They served you splendidly during the war.


William Duff: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member for Halifax. They were of no service at all. They were a lot of bumboats; they did no good. But we are not talking about naval affairs; we are talking about patrol boats for fishery purposes. I think we should try and spend as little money as possible and not spend more on patrol boats when there are twenty already on the Pacific coast. There are not as many as that on the Atlantic coast.
Mr. 'STEVENS: There is a very extended coast line on the Pacific because of the large islands. We have the Queen Charlotte group of islands and the large Vancouver island. That necessitates a great deal more patrolling of the coast line than the straight line mileage of the coast would indicate. It may be 1,500 miles in a straight line, but as a matter of fa'ct we have 25,000 miles of coast line including the islands and long inlets, some of which extend 50 or 100 miles into the land. There is a great necessity for increased fishery patrol service on the Pacific. I heartily commend the minister for providing for this additional protection or patrol. The increase of license fees during the past two years on the Pacific coast covers any additional expense involved in the change. We have a situation there which requires very close watching. The American fishing boats come up from Seattle and fish on the banks off and outside of territorial waters. According to law they are not allowed to use our harbours except for the purpose of shelter in storm and certain other restricted uses. It is necessary that this large -area shall be carefully watched so as not to discriminate against us or to endanger our native industry. There is no wastage in connection with the patrol on the Pacific coast at the present time, and I am sure this is a very wise measure on the part of the minister.


Frank S. Cahill: What are the receipts from the fishery licenses on the Pacific coast?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Estimated?


Frank S. Cahill: No, what are they now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were increased this year.


John Howard Sinclair: As far as the Atlantic coast is concerned, there is less necessity for using the patrol than there was formerly. We have no trouble from the American fishermen now. The reason for the patrol on the Atlantic coast was largely on account of the American fishermen, and these are now almost on equal terms with our own because they are freely licensed by the Government, and there is very little need of increasing the expenditure on the Atlantic coast. There is always need of a patrol for enforcing the law against men who break it in connection with the fishing industry. I see that there is an increase of $110,000. I would like to know how that increase has arisen. In regard to the overseers and guardians who are covered by this item, changes have been made in Nova Scotia about which I would like to ask some information from the minister. In my own constituency there were two fishery overseers prior to the change, and I do not think their combined salaries would amount to more than about five or six hundred dollars. I am told that they were dismissed, although they were good officers, and new and inexperienced men were put in their places. The new men may be all right-both of them are returned soldiers and very deserving-but the men that were formerly doing the work, and doing it very well, at small salaries were summarily dismissed and inexperienced men put in their places at, I believe, more than double the salary, that was being earned before. I have seen in newspapers the statement that the staff had been reduced in Nova Scotia, and that there are fewer fishery officers than before. That is not the case in my county. There were only two prior to the change, and there are still two; the only difference is that the expenditure has more than doubled, without, I think, increasing the efficiency of the service at all. Now that is not very satisfactory. I do not know whether that condition is widespread or not, but I would like to know from the minister why he dismissed the men that were doing their work well in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. In fact he dismissed three, one on the coast of Antigonish and two on the coast of Guysborough county, and replaced them by other men who had no experience in the protection of the fisheries and who, as far as I can learn, are not any more efficient than the men he dismissed; in fact they are not even as good officers,

but the expenditure has been very largely increased. Now this is not the time to increase the expenditure, and I would like to hear from the minister why he took that step in my constituency.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: First, I will answer the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), who inquired what was the revenue from fishery licenses in British Columbia. In
1918-	19 the revenue was $59,349.94, but in
1919-	20 the fees for canneries and fishery licenses had been increased and the revenue amounted to $270,698.41.
In reply to my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), I think he is aware that when I became Minister of Fisheries the country was overburdened with fishery guardians, who numbered 843 for the whole of Canada The remuneration these men re-, eeived was anywhere from $28 up to $100 per annum. They did very little * guarding of fish, as far as I can understand, and the appointment of these men was considered a political appointment. I let those 843 guardians go on the 1st of April, 1918, and announced that the policy of the Fisheries Department from that date forward would be to only engage such guardians and overseers as the service actually demanded; we would give them larger remuneration than they had been receiving in the past, but we would only employ them during the season of the year when their services would be actually required. As regards the guardians, we pay them whatever the ruling rate of wages is, but only keep them for the number of days they are actually needed. In Nova Scotia, I find, in the year 1917-18, there were 453 guardians. In 1918-19 the number was reduced to 138, and in 1919-20 there were 165; and we estimate that we shall need 100 for the coming year. I do not kno w whether in my memoranda I have the number of guardians in the hon. member's constituency or not.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to get an estimate of the cost as well as the number of men employed. I might say to the minister that I do not think there is anything new in only paying these guardians for the time they work. That has been the policy ever since I can remember -guardians were paid for the actual number of hours they worked during the season. So the minister has not developed anything new in that regard. However, the question I would like to get answered is whether there is an increase or decrease in the expenditure.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That was not the system that I found in operation when I

became minister. I think a guardian got $25 a year and did nothing. Sometimes he received $50 and sometimes $100; and as a general rule these men rendered absolutely no service to the country. I therefore deemed it wise to change that policy, and instead of these being political appointments-that is as regards guardians and overseers-to have them appointed on a business basis. The guardians and overseers now employed are required to give their whole time to their duties, and are paid a great deal more than they formerly were, according to the number of days upon which they render service.


Frank S. Cahill: How much are they paid?


John Howard Sinclair: I hope the minister will be able to give more definite information on this question. I understand that he has reduced the number of overseers to 100, but he has so enormously increased the salaries paid to them that he will spend a great deal more money than was expended before. I would like to know if this is true.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have a much smaller number of guardians and overseers than we formerly had. The amount paid for their salaries is not only less than it formerly was but there is a greater degree of efficiency.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the salary paid, surely the minister can tell us that?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The guardians and overseers are paid according to whatever the current wages are-either $2.50 or $3 a day-and depending upon whether they reside in any part of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or British Columbia.


John Howard Sinclair: I hope the minister will be able to give me a little more definite information, because I would like to get the salaries that the former overseers in my constituency received, and the salaries he is paying to the new overseers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Under the old rate the overseer in Nova Scotia received $250 plus ten cents a mile. They now receive $1,020 a year. The overseers are permanently engaged, and guardians are not.


John Howard Sinclair: It would appear that the present overseers are paid about five times as much as the former overseers. If this is true my hon. friend is not going to save money even by reducing the number from 150 to 100.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: With the remuneration the overseers get, plus the ten cents a
mile, their salaries run about $300 a year.
I admit that we are now paying more than we did in former times, but the present overseers are very much more efficient than the former overseers were.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
the department pay the travelling expenses of those overseers in addition to their salaries?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No. They are
allowed only $200 a year for the keep of their horses.


John Howard Sinclair: In addition?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Is any allowance
made for gasolene for their motor boats?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We allow th'em an additional $75 a year.


William Duff: There is no question that
the minister is correct in stating that when he took charge his department was overmanned in the Outside Service. But that was due to the fact that after the Conservative Government came into power in 1911 they fell over themselves in their eagerness to appoint all kinds of officials, whether those officials were required or not, and some 25,000 were appointed between 1911 and 1917. I presume that when the minister took over the Department of Marine and Fisheries in 1917 he found a' certain proportion of those 25,000 officials in that department, and I think he was quite justified in removing a great many of those superfluous officials, some of whom were being paid, as he said a moment ago, $25 just to	keep them
"good fellows" between elections. But I do not think the expenditure of his department is very much less now than it was when he took charge.
However, I would like to get back to the patrol boats. I agree with the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), that it is necessary to have certain patrol boats on both the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast, but I am not sure whether it is necessary to have more than twenty boats on the Pacific coast. If forty or a hundred are necessary, I am quite satisfied that they should be supplied, but from information I have received it would appear that twenty boats are ample to look after fishery protection in those waters. There is not a great deal of work for the patrol boats to look after. They have a certain territory allotted to them, and it

is no trouble for a boat to cover from 100 to 150 miles per day, and-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Duff: It is no use to shout "carried," because gentlemen on this side of the House are prepared to sit here all night if they have any interruptions from members on the other side. In fact, I came back *with my friends determined that the vote for the Naval Service should not go through if it took us all night. And we feel the same in regard to the vote for the Fisheries Service. Therefore I would advise hon. gentlemen who have no interest in these Estimates to keep quiet and let us proceed with the business of the House.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be quite satisfied to vote an increase for the Fisheries Patrol Service if I thought it was necessary. I cannot see that it is. Iff there is necessity for more boats on the Pacific coast, why sell the Canada and the Grilse? Why not put them on the Pacific coast? The minister laughs, but let me tell him that I know the Canada from keel to truck, and she is the best boat in his department. She did excellent service, as the hon. member from Halifax can tell us, before the war as a fisheries protection boat, and she is still able to continue that service. She can be overhauled for a few thousand dollars, as against an expenditure of $50,000 or $100,000 for a new boat. If members from the Pacific coast think they should have one or two more patrol boats to protect their fisheries, let us use those we have rather than spend money for new boats. As I say, the Canada is an excellent boat, and the Grilse, although perhaps a little extravagant in regard to fuel, is also a good boat, and they might well be transferred to the Pacific coast. As the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has said, we do not want sixteen boats on the Atlantic coast at the present time to protect our fisheries. A few years ago. when the Americans were restricted in their use of our harbours and did not enjoy the privileges which have since been granted to them, it was necessary to maintain a strong fleet of fishery protection boats on the Atlantic coast. I strongly urge the minister before he agrees to the expenditure for new patrol boats for the Pacific coast to get advice from other people who know the local conditions there, and I think he will find that if further boats are required his best course will be to transfer some of our Atlantic boats and thereby save the country several thousand dollars.
[Mr. Duff.l


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am afraid the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is confusing the fisheries protection service with the patrol service. The fisheries protection service, as the hon. member is aware, is to protect our fisheries outside the three-mile limit. This vote has nothing to do with the service in that regard. I am asking for this amount for small patrol boats for use on the numerous streams to be found in the province of British Columbia with its long coast line of 7,000 miles. In addition to the twenty small boats that we have now, this vote is to enable me to hire about forty more, and also to build two small boats for use out there. With our license system-and I think it is a correct one, open to all British subjects of the white race-for the preservation of the rich fisheries of British Columbia, it is absolutely necessary that the patrol system be very much more rigidly carried out in the future than it has been in the past. The Canada or the Grilse would be absolutely useless for service on these small streams. For service outside the three mile limit I agree with my hon. friend that those two boats would be quite suitable, but these are small Patrol boats that we need to enforce our fisheries regulations.


William Duff: I quite appreciate what the minister says, but boats like the Canada and the Grilse can go up any ordinary stream-they do so on the Atlantic coast to-day-and in addition to protecting our fisheries beyond the three-mile limit they look after our inshore fisheries. It is quite true that 100 miles up-river it might be necessary to have other means of protecting the fisheries, but in such cases it seems to me that boats would not be required. We have certain rivers in Nova Scotia where the fishery guardians do not use boats; they patrol the banks of the rivers. It seems to me that unless this is absolutely necessary, and unless the minister has been well advised, money should not be expended in the purchase of new boats. As I said a moment ago, I do not want to say that this money should not be voted if it is absolutely necessary, but my information is that at the present time there are sufficient boats on the Pacific coast. If a few more are needed, let us take them from the Atlantic coast. I have mentioned only the Canada and the Grilse, but the minister knows we have a number of motor boats on the Atlantic coast, and they could be used out on the Pacific coast instead of

spending a large amount of money for new boats.


Mr. PECK:: I rise at this time to take advantage of our system of debate to say a few things about the salmon fisheries of British Columbia. I regret that I had not . an opportunity of being present when my hon. friend from "Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was speaking, because I always listen to him with the keenest interest. He knows a great deal about fisheries, and he speaks always with the utmost authority. I am told that my hon. friend is qualifying, or attempting to qualify for that most unlikely event, the attainment to office of the present Opposition and his own holding of the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries.


William Duff: Thank you.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Things often happen that nobody expects to happen, and if my hon. friend should attain to that position every hon. member will have the greatest satisfaction in knowing that at the head of that department is a man who knows what he is talking about, however great mistakes he may make in criticising .the policy of this Government.
Now, Sir, I wish to say a few words upon a matter which interests very much the part of the country that I come from, and a matter which has been the subject of acute controversy. I refer to the salmon fisheries of British Columbia. I know that some of my colleagues from that province do not concur in the view that I take, but I mean to state my case and to set forth what I think to be the right policy in regard to this important matter. Those who do not know the salmon fisheries of British Columbia, those who do not know anything about the habits of salmon, may be interested to know that salmon are a peculiar fish. They spawn in the fresh water, and after hatching they go out to sea. Every four years the sockeye salmon, the greatest family of salmon that keeps up our salmon industry, return and sport around in the outside waters of the great rivers of British Columbia and then commence to make their way back to the spawning grounds. They struggle from boulder to boulder and from crag to crag until they reach the very stream in which they were born, when they finally sink back in the last hours of propagation. The salmon fisheries of British Columbia were once of very great importance. They are still so, indeed, but the Fraser river fisheries have been seriously depleted. The
great run of fish that annually kept up the Fraser river fisheries came down from the northwestern Pacific until they struck the western coast of Vancouver Island. They followed to the inlet along that coast, some of them going in, but most of them going on in great volume until they struck the strait of Juan de Fuca, they proceeded along the American shore, and then crossed to Puget Sound and the eastern shore of that placid waiter. A few of them went into the Skagit and Snohomish and other streams in that district, but the great bulk of the fish were making for that great mother of fisheries, the Fraser. Well, Sir, a peculiar thing happened. Our American friends, whom I sincerely admire, set about to trap these fish on their way to our great fishery grounds. I do not know whether hon. members are familiar with the construction of fish traps,-huge circles of netted wires with great leads going out some hundreds of yards to lead the fish into the traps. Well, our American friends constructed such traps as these and year by year they caught these fish in immense numbers. They persisted in this foolish extravagance until they had practically destroyed our salmon fisheries. When they had a surfeit of catch they sometimes lifted their pots, as they call them

their nets-and allowed the fish to go on, but by that time the fish were too much bruised and exhausted to contend with the strong currents of the Fraser. I tell you that with a great deal of detail, Mr. Chairman, because that was the beginning of the great depletion of the salmon fisheries of the Fraser. When you hear the cannery men of British Columbia tell you about our fisheries being depleted, you will remember that what destroyed the great fisheries of the Fraser was the salmon traps placed in Puget Sound by the American canners.
This diabolical method of fishing finally depleted, as I say, our great salmon fishery. Late in the summer of 1913 contractors working for Mackenzie and Mann work-, ing on the Canadian Northern line along the southern bank of the Fraser put in a great blast and blasted a huge mass of rock into the Fraser River canyon. The fishery officials of the Canadian Government, as well as those of British Columbia, made every effort to erect fish ladders and thus permit the fish to pass, but their efforts were not attended with much success and that is what "put the kibosh" on the great fishery of the Fraser. That marks the final phase of the great run on the Fraser,-a vast run indeed, the fish coming

in wonderful numbers every fourth year. These circumstances provided an excuse on the part of the canners of British Columbia to advocate that a close season be put on in the northern country.
I notice that my hon. friend (Mr. Duff), in the able speech which he made in the House some time ago, quoted Scripture very freely, and I fear that he must have aroused the enmity of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) who is always so apt in his Scriptural illustrations. Well, the quoting of Scripture very often indicates repentence and sometimes precedes conversion, so I have no quarrel with those who do it. But I noticed that in all the quotations which my hon. friend made, from Genesis to Revelation, he did not produce any authority to show' that the fisheries of the world were set aside for one particular people. But that is what took place in Northern British Columbia. About 1909 or 1910 the Government of the day made a regulation that no additional companies should enter into the cannery business in Northern British Columbia, and it came to pass that this regulation was concurred in by the British Columbia Government. I cannot pause to tell you of the enormities which resulted from this regulation or of the great amount of wrongdoing that ensued.
I may say right here that I dislike raising a controversy of this kind. I myself -was for a long time in the cannery business in British Columbia; many of the cannery men of that province are close personal friends Of mine. So far as that goes, the cannery men are as good manufacturers as any other class in the community. At the same time, wre are face to face with a certain condition in our part of the country. We have essayed to break the monopoly which exists. I am in a hard fight to-night, and I mean to lay about me with [DOT]hard blows no matter who may be hit.
These regulations have been in force for about ten years in Northern British Columbia. The great bulk oif fish has been caught by gill nets and the rest has been caught by purse and drag seine nets, with a few traps. The whole coast, outside of gill-net fishing, w'as parcelled out amongst the canning interests, and this resulted in an exclusive monopoly. You will be surprised, Sir, when I tell you that this monopoly had grown to such an extent that we were not allow'ed to know even about our ov'n fisheries. A Mr. Nickerson of the town of Prince Rupert, a man who had fought a long and noble fight for the principle of open fisheries, last summer asked

a quite ordinary question about what cannery or company had a certain license, and he was told that he could not be answered until the gentleman who regulated the fisheries in that part of the country would write to the chief commissioner in Vancouver, and then it might be permitted to mention how these fisheries of ours were parcelled out. Moreover, when I asked the chief commissioner of fisheries in Vancouver if I might have a map showing the purse seine and drag seine licenses, the canneries, the gill net areas, and how the fisheries were parcelled out, in my district, what do you think he said? He said: " I will give you that, but keep it under your hat." I have a pretty big hat, but I have not a big enough hat to keep this under. Well, I asked him: "Why * must I keep it under my hat?" His reply was: "If you don't, you will raise a lot of trouble." I said: "Why will I raise a lot of trouble? Do not these fisheries belong to the people of Northern British Columbia? He said: "Yes, but it will make a lot of trouble." I must, however, to be honest, say that he finally gave me a huge map, which I put up in my office in Prince Rupert, and from the highways and byways I invited those interested in fisheries to come in and look at the map and see how these fisheries had been parcelled out. That shows to what arrogance this privileged interest had grown and how it had got into such a state of monopoly that nobody seemed .to have any knowledge about what was taking place except the privileged class. I have not consulted with the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), but perhaps he will be able to tell the committee that at one time when only purse seine or drag seine licenses were to be let out in that part of the country, they had to be O.K'd by a politician or member of Parliament. I do not know whether that has been the case during his regime, but I think he is aware that that occurred in times preceding his administration. The whole matter had thus grown into a political intrigue and monopoly, and the privileges had been abused. We have had a long array of commissions in regard to the salmon fisheries of British Columbia, and so far as I know, they have never got anywhere; all the awards have generally ended in favour of the cannery concerns. But a rather unique commission was appointed just before the end of the war-I forget what year it was. One of the gentlemen on this commission was a member of the famous food control; another was a fishmonger

from Toronto, and another was some other man who was supposed to know something about the fishery business. That commission brought in a report recommending that no more licenses be granted for the erection of salmon canneries in Northern British Columbia for a period of five years. But a rather unique feature regarding the matter was that one gentleman on this commission, however much he wished to exclude the rest of his countrymen from the benefits of this industry, provided himself with a good fat license in British Columbia, which license he meant to operate under, but which he did not operate under because he found the tide of public opinion was so strong against him that he did not dare to dc so. That is just an instance of fishery commissions and where they lead one to.
This brings me up to last year and the conference of British Columbia members upon this important question last spring. At those conferences a majority of British Columbia members were for open fisheries, and I can leave that question whether they were or not to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), Mr. Desbarats and Mr. Found, superintendent of Fisheries. But it was then too late to change conditions, and certain stipulations were made to provide for returned soldiers, the stipulations being that a certain percentage of gill nets and boats must be provided for returned soldiers. I wish to call the attention of the committee very especially to that point, because it will have an important bearing upon something I wish to speak of a little later on. Hon. members from British Columbia will bear me out that it was determined that the Department of Fisheries be asked to reserve a number of boats in Northern British Columbia for returned soldiers, and the department complied with this request. I may say that the department was at all times most willing to assist us and the returned soldiers and to help along the rational method of fishing. When, however, this occurred, it was too late to change conditions and we had to go on with the policy upon which we had determined. When Col. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, returned to the coast, and, with that easy familiarity he has with them, told British Columbia canners of the new conditions and stipulations regarding returned soldiers, they " went up in the air," according to his statement, and were going to come to Ottawa and do desperate things to the Government; but they apparently became finally persuaded that a good monopoly in the hand was worth a whole lot of 224
uncertain conditions in the bush, and so they agreed to go on under the conditions that were made as regards returned soldiers. Last fall the minister telegraphed to British Columbia that he was about to declare the fisheries of British Columbia open. The Chief Inspector of Fisheries, Col. Cunningham, was called East, and that is where he enters the scene. I may say that I do not like to criticise the conduct of a public servant, but conditions may arise when one feels that one must do so in the public interest. It is an unfortunate circumstance that as long as I can remember-and I can remember over thirty years of the administration of fisheries in British Columbia-the chief inspector and the principal officers in the Department of Fisheries have been very much in favour of the canneries. I am not going to charge dishonesty, but I will say this, that they have had a cannery mind and their whole attitude has always been in favour of the canners.
When the minister telegraphed to British Columbia that he was about to declare the salmon fisheries of British Columbia open there was great consternation, and people wondered what was going to take place. The salmon canners of British Columbia, however, had been privileged for so long to control the policy of the Department of Fisheries that they seemed to be worrying very little. They began to pour in upon the department and the minister-I am saying this upon my own responsibility-voluminous telegrams asking him to wait until the chief inspector got to Ottawa. Now that was a peculiar thing-this monopoly relying upon the chief inspector of the Fisheries as their great bulwark and mainstay. However, the chief inepector finally came here. I also came here at that time. I was interested in Northern British Columbia, and in our part of the country people take an entirely different view from what they take in Southern British Columbia. I made it my business to come here at my own expense to try and influence the department with my views upon this question. It was one with which I was very familiar, and a business in which I had been engaged for a very long time. I rather think the cannery men were asleep at the switch in regard to that. Well, the chief inspector came here and I can faithfully say that he said everything he could say to urge the Government to pursue the policy that had been pursued in the past; but the Minister of Fisheries stood his ground, he was not going to be shaken from his purpose by the onslaught that had been made upon



him by the great rich cannery companies of British Columbia. So he issued a decree that the cannery enterprise was to be thrown open.
I should like, if I may, to detail, at this point the regulations that were to ensue. It is very difficult to illustrate to the House, especially to those hon. gentlemen who are not familiar with the intricacies of the salmon fishing business, the different modes of fishing that obtain, and the different regulations that have to be made. One of the regulations provided that any British subject should be allowed to procure a gill-net license, but no increase was allowed in the number of gill-net licenses to Oriental fishermen. Of course, those gentlemen who come from the East know that this question of Oriental fishing is a very vital one with us. Well, the minister made a regulation that the number of licenses issued to Orientals for gill-net fishing should not be increased, and I wish the House to follow me very closely on that point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did I understand my
hon. friend to saw that any increase in the number of Oriental fishermen was forbidden so far as gill-net fishing was concerned?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Yes. The minister made that regulation, which was in close conformity with public opinion in British Columbia. I would ask my hon. friend, whom I respect very much, just to wait for a few moments when I hope to illustrate in a very vivid way the importance of this regulation. Next, drag-seines were to be abolished wherever possible. That was a very good regulation, because, ordinarily, fishing by drag-seines is a destructive method. However, in some places it is quite impossible to catch fish without drag-seines, and in those places they have to be used. It creates a very unfortunate condition, because it is hard for the inspectors to decide just where those drag-seines may be used.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What kind of fish do they catch with these drag-seines?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Salmon. I presume my hon. friend from North Cape Breton knows the method of fishing with a drag-seine. They take out a seine several hundred fathoms long and sweep it along the beach. Then the end is brought in to the beach, bringing in the fish. That method of fishing obtains only in certain places.
Next, a drastic change was made in the purse-seine regulations. Here is one of the very important points I want to bring out, and I would direct the very earnest attention of the House
[Mr. Peck. 1
to it. Instead of certain cannery men being granted the exclusive privilege of fishing in large areas the coast was divided into districts, and any white British subject who paid a license fee could obtain a purse-seine license in those areas. That was a very wide departure from the former policy. Not only that, but a future policy was contemplated to remove every vestige of monopoly and restore the fisheries to our own people. I had the pleasure of meeting Col. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, after his return to British Columbia, and he informed me that he thought the new regulations were going to work all right. I told him I was not conceited enough to think that the cannery men had played their trump card, and that proved to be true. I think things would have gone better if the chief inspector had made a more loyal and energetic attempt to support the regulations then in force. That was his proper course. He came here quite properly, ter present his views and argue his point, but when he found that his minister had decided upon different regulations and upon a different policy, then it was his business, if he was in loyal support of his minister and department to go back to British Columbia and try and put his minister's views into operation. That is where the whole thing fell down in my opinion. Instead of that, he seemed to me to do everything to interpret the regulations in the most awkward way and in a way that would disgust every one he could. I hope the minister will see fit at some time to call for the correspondence between the chief inspector and the cannery men. He will find some remarkable corespondence there, if it is all sent to him, which I very much doubt. I am not going into that, but I could entertain the House in a lively manner with some of the correspondence I had the advantage of reviewing.
Up in my part of the country the attitude is entirely different from what it is in Southern British Columbia. I represent what is known as No. 2, of the fishery districts of British Columbia. There are three districts altogether, and all of No. 2 district is in my own riding of Skeena. By a return that was brought down by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries this session I see that the value of the fish caught in British Columbia in 1919-I shall not detain the House by giving the quantities, and I shall give the figures only for salmon, although No. 2 district has the same preponderance in other fisheries that the figures prove it to have in salmon-was as follows: In the Southern district the value of the

salmon amounted to $2,483,897; in Vancouver Island, which is known as No. 3 district, $3,691,123; in my own district, the Northern district, No. 2, the value amounted to $4,744,939. This shows the great preponderance the district I have the honour to represent has In the salmon fisheries of British Columbia. Although we possess these in our own districts they are parcelled out down in Vancouver by the Chief Inspector of Fisheries and we know nothing whatever about what takes place until the gentleman who represents the Fishery Department in our part of the country-and I cannot trust myself to speak any more specifically about him- comes up and informs us as to how these fisheries have been parcelled out. For fear that I may be charged with sectionalism, I shall not pursue the subject any further.
We should have a permanent resident inspector, a man who is all the time on the ground looking after this great fishery-one of the greatest fisheries in the world, really the greatest fishery in the world-in Northern British Columbia. We should have a responsible inspector from whom we could at all times obtain information. I do not mean to criticise the department on that account because we all feel a great deal of gratitude to the minister for the strong stand he has taken in regard to open fishing.
The cannery interests got very busy and manipulated a lot of organizations in Southern British Columbia to petition the minister to cancel any regulations made or to allow those of 1919 to stand for this year, and then have a board appointed to manage the British Columbia fisheries in the future. I regret very much to say that this movement extended to some of the organizations of returned soldiers. In the year 1919 some quite valuable privileges were allotted to different people in British Columbia, some of these people being returned soldiers and therefore these few men became a privileged class and they wanted to keep the thing on. So these associations sent voluminous telegrams-most of them "collect"-to the minister about the fisheries and urging a continuation of the regulations of 1919. All they wanted was one more year, just one more year-anything might happen in one more year; the Government might be defeated-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: -.and hon. gentlemen opposite might come in, and that is what they really wished to happen, because these opposite canners were the gentlemen who 224*
established this monopoly under the Laurier Government. The cannerymen in British Columbia were very glad to take a chance for another year. However the Minister of Fisheries stood his ground against all these influences, and was determined that these regulations that he had made should stand. That is the end of my narrative in regard to the history of these fishery regulations, how they have come about from time to time and how they have passed from Administration to Administration and Government to Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to help my hon. friend to emphasize the case he is making out. Does he mean to tell this committee that the minister had made certain regulations that were satisfactory to him but that the Government official refuses or fails to carry them out?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: The minister did make
regulations which were satisfactory to my part of the country and which I think were very strong and statesmanlike regulations. I am criticising the policy of the chief inspector. I have not asked the minister as to his opinion but I am criticising the chief inspector and I attribute to the policy that was pursued by the chief inspector the fact that there is so much discontent now in regard to these regulations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My understanding is that the officer has not carried out the regulations. Is that correct?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I can only say what I have said already, that his interpretation of the regulations provided the reason for the discontent. One great stock argument is the depletion of the fisheries, and the Fraser river is pointed to. I think I have proved that it was the avarice of the American cannery men on Puget sound that destroyed the Fraser river fisheries and not the gill netter. I have not seen anybody who maintains that the fisheries were destroyed by any other method than trap fishing of the Americans on Puget sound. Yet they will come forward with the most extraordinary arguments, which I shall expose in a few minutes. It has been argued that the Alaskan fisheries are being depleted. That may be true, and it is due to the same unscrupulous use of traps by the Alaskan cannery men. One thing that is most peculiar with our friends to the south of us is their remarkable indifference to their natural resources. They seem to wish to go ahead and manufacture everything they can regardless of the future supply. The same

condition obtains on the Naas river. The mouth of the Naas river is contiguous to the Portland canal and one side of the Portland canal is in American territory. Our American .friends are constructing traps along the northern part of the Portland canal and catching a lot of our Naas fish. No doubt they will injure or destroy that great fishery. If everybody fishes at every place and fishes as hard as he can, it will destroy any fishery, but if you make regulations' [DOT] that there shall be certain close seasons and that nets cannot be cast in certain areas you will allow the fish to pass up to the great spawning grounds.
Now we come to some of the criticisms which have been made with regard to these fishery regulations of the minister. Let us take the arguments which are made by those who are opposing the new regulations. We listen to what is said by Mr. Peter Wallace, the pioneers in the northern portion of British Columbia, a man whom I know very well and of whom I think very highly in his private character. But he has always taken a very peculiar view of the fishery situation. He claims that these new regulations will destroy the fisheries of British Columbia, and is thus quoted in the Vancouver World:
I venture to say that hardly a cannery will operate this side of the line. The owners will strip their plants to get out of them what they can.
That is the dictum of Mr. Peter Wallace, one of the pioneer fishermen of British Columbia. In the first place, I direct the minister's attention to the fact that any argument that is put up by a canner man should be discounted by seventy-five per cent because it is argument in which he is personally interested. But I should discount the .argument of Mr. Peter Wallace by more than that. I have known him for * a long time, and the underlying point of the . argument he has always put up has invariably been this:	God put the fish
into the sea for the sole benefit and emolument of the Wallace people. That has always been the nature of his argument. Now he, and some otheT gentlemen who are associated with him, talk about the fishing out of the fisheries of British Columbia. I want to ask one question-and in this connection I appeal to my colleagues from British Columbia:	Who fished out
-or very nearly did- Smith's inlet? My hon. friend from Comox (Mr. Clements) will know something about that. Who fished out Barclay sound and Naden harbour? Who but this gentleman and

liis associates. Who, twenty years ago, fished out the sturgeon fisheries-in cold blood-of Pitt lake? Who but this gentleman and his associates. He talks about the Americans, but in the nineties he was over helping *o fish out the poor old Columbia river. But the Columbia river fisheries recovered, just as surely as ours will recover with a proper system of conservation. However, that is the class of argument that we encounter with some of the canners of British Columbia.
Now, I shall cause Mr. Wallace to leave the stage and we shall have another entry up it-I will not say the entry of a hero, neither will I say of a villain-I refer to Hon. William Sloan, Minister of Fisheries of British Columbia. He is always there with the corporations, ready to raise a voice in the interests of privilege. When these new regulations were made by the minister -I will let you into a Calrnet secret, I do not. think I am acting wrongly in so doing -the Minister of .Fisheries of British Columbia tried to induce the British Columbia Cabinet to condemn those regulations. But " Honest John " and some of his friends did not see it that way, so he had to decide upon another policy. He brought out a very elaborate treatise which was very well printed. Its cover, if I remember rightly, was ornamented with gold lettering. iThis treatise stated that the fisheries of British Columbia were about to be entirely depleted, and he advocated that the Government of Canada should take them over. What a pity it is that these views about the cannery monopoly did not once cross Mr. Sloan's mind when he was a member of the Dominion Parliament and a supporter of the Laurier 'Government. What a pity it was that it did not cross his mind in view of the fact that he, more than any other living man, was responsible for the introduction of this canning monopoly in Northern British Columbia. I remember very well-I was in the cannery business myself at that time-his telling me about how they were going to prevent any other canneries being started on the Skeena and on the northern rivers. I said to him, " Bill, it's too raw, the people won't stand for it." However, I was wrong and he was right. The people did stand for it all these years, and a lot of them stand for it yet; so I was wrong in that regard.
Now, Sir, I have nothing against that argument, if it can be proven that private enterprise cannot handle these fisheries. I belong to that school of economists who think that these are natural resources of

the country which by their nature may be very well and to advantage administered by the Government; but if any one can prove to me that the fisheries of British Columbia may be better operated by the Government I would be very glad to support that argument and that plan. However, I do not believe, Sir, that that is the case. Take our Atlantic fisheries. I might appeal to my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) who know those fisheries well, and I think they will admit that they are carried out entirely by private enterprise. Furthermore those fisheries are very successful, they are a great resource of this country, and there is no reason why they should be carried on and operated by the Government.
I would like to read a quotation from a speech that was made by Hon. Mr. Sloan at the Fisheries Convention that was recently held in Vancouver, and I am sorry that 1 have not got time to read it in extenso, he said in part:
I view with alarm existing conditions. There is the gravest danger of one of our leading assets being wholly destroyed. It is time the Dominion Government viewed the situation in this province as it is. Commission after commission appointed by the Dominion, after investigation, have set forth the distressing facts.
The reports and recommendations of those commissions have been and are being ignored in Ottawa.
Of course Mr. Sloan does not say how long this ignoring has taken place, but it is some time. He goes on:
It is high time that the conditions be realized. The fish of the province belong primarily to its people and the people of Canada.
That is the particular phrase I wish to call attention to. Mr. Sion did not' have those views when he induced the Laurier Government to introduce the cannery monopoly. Oh, no, he did not have those views at all. He then thought that those fisheries should be left to the canners of northern British Columbia. He suddenly experienced a change, but we are very happy to see that illustrious statesman arrive at such a state of mind. He continues:
They constitute one of their greatest natural resources. The fisheries, if properly administered, will last for all time. They can be so administered as to outlast our mines and our forests. The depleted runs can be restored. The interior lake waters can be stocked with desirable forms of food fishes without danger '.a existing species.
He was very hopeful so long as we kept the great fishery in the hands of a private monopoly. He goes on:
The salmon fisheries of this province should be taken over bodily by the Dominion Government and operated to their betterment.
As I said before, what a shame it is that Mr. Sloan did not have those views when he got the cannery monopoly established. However, he has changed his mind and when the cannery monopoly came under the firm hand of a strong federal minister he comes out and says: "Let us hand the thing over to the Government". I have a very strong suspicion, Mr. Chairman, that there are some very bad old cannery plants on the Fraser that the owners wish sold at a good price. I think there is a whole lot to be said from that point of view.
I would like to put this question to the committee, whether or not they think that I or the other residents of northern British Columbia are going to advocate a policy which will destroy those great fisheries. I do not think that any hon. gentleman will accuse us of anything like that. We want to open those fisheries to the enterprise of our countrymen.
I wish to quote from a letter written to me by a man whose name is very honourably associated with the salmon fisheries of British Columbia, a man who has passed the best part of his life in the industry, and who wished to get a cannery license. In his letter he quotes what a cannery man,-not a fishery official remember,-said to him:
I will give you $5,000-
This is in regard to a cannery license which a cannery company wished to secure in certain waters of northern British Columbia.
I will give you $5,000 in cash or stock if you get that license. I will have no dealing with anyone else in the matter. If you do not accept this you will not get the license.
This, of course, was some years ago. I could quote a whole lot more, Mr. Chairman, but I think I should not detain the House at this hour. I say that this monopoly not only debauches the people who regulate it, but it debauches the people who enjoy it, for it leads to all sorts of intrigue and machinations, and ultimately it can lead only to corruption.
Let us come to the chief argument that has been advanced by the cannery interests against the purse-seine regulations of the minister. Of cpurse they did not say fhat what they feared was the destruction of the cannery monopoly. No! what they feared was that this purse seining would get in the hands of the Japanese! It is very edifying to find the cannery men so

anxious for the benefit of the white men. I appeal to anyone and to all my hon. friends from British Columbia as to how the Oriental prestige in our salmon fishing grew up, how but under the fostering care of the salmon canners of British Columbia. Can any man deny that? I think not. That is how they grew up, but all of a sudden those gentlemen become exceedingly patriotic and they do not want to see purse seining get into the hands of the Japanese ! They claim that by opening up the purse-seine areas- instead of keping them for their own exclusive monopoly-they, the cannery men, will be able to get all kinds of purse-seine licenses in the name of white British subjects and then employ Japanese to run them. However, Sir, they have been playing upon the fears of several organizations, and they have induced those organizations to take action, at least, we have all received long "collect" telegrams- (all hon. members from British Columbia who remain here for the magnificent sum of $2,500)-costing $4 or $5 each, asking us to preserve the regulations of 1919. I wish to say that the policy of the minister in making those regulations was to destroy this monopoly and to restore our fisheries to our own people.
Now I wish to come to what I think is a very important point. As long as I have been in British Columbia, and that is oveT 30 years, I have heard politicians year in and year out seeking to represent the people in municipal, provincial and federal affairs, and their one line of talk has been to make the province a "white British Columbia." But I notice that the province is getting more yellow all the time. At last comes along a minister who, I venture to say, proposes to pursue a definite policy which will restore these fisheries to our own people. What happens? The interests who enjoy the privileges of this monopoly turn against him. Not that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wishes to discriminate against the Japanes people. I do not think that is in his mind; I am sure he has the same admiration for the Japanese nation as I have myself. I adimire the prompt way in wdiich they entered into the war; I admire their punctilious observance of treaties; and I admire the honourable way in which they discharged their obligations in the war. But at the same time I think it is ridiculous to say that Japan would ever tolerate a state of affairs such as we have in British Columbia where a foreign population controls the fisheries.
Let me make a comparison of how our fishery licenses are allotted between the

Japanese and our native-born Canadians In 1919 out of 4,596 gill net licenses, only 417 were held by native-born Canadians; and out of 2,203 trolling licenses only 412 were held by native-born Canadians. Now these methods of fishing are peculiarly th< poor man's, and I am quoting these figure! to show how the fisheries are controlled by the Japanese.
Shortly after the war regulations were published, Mr. Ukita, the Japanese Consul in Vancouver, got- into 'the press, and he condemned the regulations. But I would like to put it to. Mr. Ukita, with the utmost respect for him or any other representative of the Imperial Japanese Government, if he thinks his government would tolerate a state of affairs such as obtains in our fisheries in British Columbia. I do net think so for a moment. We might cite their mercantile policy. When they started their mercantile marine they had their ships built in Great Britain, but they employed British officers to manage them. As time went along-and no one could criticise their action; it was quite right-they officered those ships with their own nationals, and it is well known now that the ambition of Japan is to control the mercantile marine of the Pacific. No one criticises that ambition. It shows that Japan is a wide-awake nation. It also shows that she would not for a moment tolerate the state of affairs in her fisheries such as we permit in British Columbia by allowing the Japanese to control our salmon fisheries.
There is a great deal of difference of opinion about matters of naval policy. Well, if we ever have a navy or a great mercantile marine, where are we going to draw our sailors from? Are we going to draw them from a foreign population? I put that question to my hon. friend (Mr. Duff). Shall we draw them from Japanese engaged in the fisheries? I do not think so. But, somebody may say, these Japanese who engage in this business-are they not all British subjects? Some of them are and some are not. As I pointed out the other day to a committee of the House, a good many of these naturalization papers are juggled back and forth so that we have no reason to know that it is a bona fide British subject who is securing a particular license.
It is suggested that an embargo be placed upon the export of salmon from British Columbia to the United States, The cannery men want an embargo on certain grades of fish in order to prevent them going to the United States. Personally I see no reason why an embargo should be put on

this product any more than, it should be put on grain or any other similar product. If such an embargo is put on, an exclusive market will be 'Created and the fishermen will not obtain as good a price for their fish as they otherwise would.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) made a very able and very instructive speech a short time ago upon the general question of the fisheries, during the course of which he erticised the policy bf articficial propagation of fish. We have no better authority than my hon. friend in the matter of the eastern fisheries, but when he gets into British Columbia he gets beyond Ihjis depth;-the water there is a little deeper than he is accusomed to. I am fair to say that the hon. member would not have made the criticisms that he did had he not been misinformed from certain quarters,-and I really think I know from what quarters he received his information. However, he mentioned the depletion of the sockeye fisheries and the expansion of -production of pinks and chums, the cheaper grades of fish, which have not been propagated artificially. He endeavoured to show a continuous decline in sockeye production and a continuous climb in chum and pink salmon production, with the object of proving that notwithstanding the hatching of sockeye the fishery has been going down and that without artificial hatching the other species have been coming up; in other words, that the hatcheries have been depleting rather than building up the sockeye fisheries. He points out a serious downward trend in the sockeye fishery of the Naas river, but he fails to .state that there never has been a hatchery on the Naas, or that that river system has never been stocked from any hatchery. On the Skeena, where we have two hatcheries, the sockeye fishery is being rapidly brought back to the maximum of productivity. The hon. gentleman's figures stopped at 1917, up to which point there was for many years a general downward trend. But while the pack in 1917 was 65,760 cases of sockeyes, in 1918 it rose to 123,322 cases, and last year to 184,945 cases, (or only about 2,000 -cases less than the biggest pack ever put up in any one year since fishing started there), which was in 1910, when 187,246 cases were packed. Another fact which shows what the hatcheries are doing on this -system is that when the Babine hatchery at -the head of the Skeena river was established, it was placed on a stream which while suitable for a hatchery, was not frequented by salmon to any considerable
extent. After -stocking this stream for a number of years we find that salmon are now coming to it every year in such numbers that the hatchery is usually practically filled from this stream alone. I, cite these facts for the information of my hon. friend. As a matter o-f -fact,, the salmon of British Columbia have been almost entirely controlled by the sockeye pack. The sockeye are the red fish; they are sold in the Old Country market, and that market controls salmon prices just as it controls the prices of many other products. -Such fi-sh as pinks and chums have never been sold in the Old Country market. In fact, they were not manufactured to any great extent in British Columbia until the war conditions came upon us and there was a great demand for cheap food. The -salmon canners of British Columbia then found it profitable to manufacture the cheap grades of salmon, and the trade in these grades has grown to a considerable extent. But artificial propagation had -nothing to do with the growth of production of these grades; I think my hon. friend will find that I am correct if he looks carefully into the matter.
With regard to the policy of the department, I hope that returned soldiers will be given an opportunity of entering into fishery enterprises. I -shall not go into this matter in detail, because it is now before a committee of the House and it is not proper that I should speak upon it now at any great -length. But I hope that -some such policy will be adopted.
T-o sum up: I make bold to -say that the discontent in British Columbia over regulations-outside of the manipulations of -those who were personally interested-was caused by the interpretation that wa-s put upon them by the Chief Inspector of Fisheries. Had he interpreted them according to the spirit of the minister's policy he would have had little trouble. But what has been the result? The cannery men say that if you throw these fisheries open so that everybody has -the right to come in, there will be a lot of canneries and the fisheries will be depleted. Well, since the minister broke this monopoly one canner has started business in my -di-strict. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that before this monopoly was broken three different canners came -to me and asked me to assist them to secure licenses in No. 2 district. So you can see that these men were willing to -start so long as they had a monopoly, but once the monopoly was broken they were not willing to take a chance with the outside world.
35.34

The result is that recently fewer canneries have been started than would have been started had these gentlemen achieved their desire. I think, therefore, it is proved that in such competition as obtains in Nova Scotia and the Maritime Provinces, where people enter the business without any favours, competing openly with the world, there is a natural safety valve which regulates the enterprise; and that under such conditions the fisheries will not be destroyed.	.
What we want in this country is a great white fishing population, men of our own brawn and breed, men who will develop this great enterprise so that it will be our mainstay in the hours of national peril. I appeal to this Government and to any Government, and to this Parliament and to any Parliament to stand by the regulations of the minister. I do not claim that those regulations are perfect, but if they are wrong they can be changed. If it can be proved that this industry cannot be operated by private enterprise, I would be prepared to see the Government take it over, [DOT] but it must be proved to me first. Whatever happens, I wish to appeal to the committee not to put us again under the heel of this monopoly. Leave this enterprise open to the enterprise of all our citizens and do not exclude us from this great natural resource which has been bestowed upon us by a Divine hand for our sustenance, prosperity and happiness.


William Duff: I am sure we have all been greatly interested in listening to the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Peck), whose address will be a valuable contribution to Hansard. With his knowledge of Pacific fisheries, especially the salmon fisheries, we are all pleased to listen to his observations. I am glad to hear that the salmon fishery monopoly in British Columbia has been, done away with, and I might say to my hon. friend that some hon. members on this side of the House who, if they only had the power, would, perhaps, long ago have broken this monopoly, appealed to the minister that it was time this monopoly was broken. If hy hon. friend will refer to Hansard of March, 1919, he will find that when the Fisheries Act, 1914 was being amended in regard to licenses for .salmon canneries in British Columbia, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and your humble servant, the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), strongly advised the then Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. A.

K. Maclean), who was in charge of that Bill that the monopoly at that time existing in British Columbia was not in the best interests of the fisheries. In the Montreal Star I noticed a report of an address made by the Hon. Mr. Sloan, Minister of Fisheries of British Columbia at the annual convention of Fisheries in Vancouver. That gentleman strongly criticised the Minister of Fisheries regarding the Fisheries of British Columbia; he held that the officials on the coast were not men wn* should be in charge of the fisheries. I also note from what my hon. friend (Mr. Peck) says, that he is evidently not quite satisfied with the fishery officials on the British Columbia coast. The hon. gentleman will remember that when I made my few remarks in March, 1920, regarding the fisheries, I strongly represented to the minister and to Parliament that some change should be made in regard to the officials who had charge of the fisheries on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. I am very glad my hon. friend has backed me up in that view. The time has come when we should have practical men in charge of the fisheries of this country. If we ever expect our fisheries to progress and increase, and people to engage in this great industry, we must have, in charge of the fisheries on either the Pacific or the Atlantic coast, men who have practical knowledge, so that when the public come before them those officials will be able to give them practical advice. We appreciate what my hon. friend has told us regarding the fisheries. He has made a very illuminating address, and I am sure the committee has listened with pleasure to his observations.


Mr. MAKTIN:: If there is one member more than another for whom I have a kind regard, it is the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), but when he tells this committee that the Canada and the Grilse should be maintained for fishery purposes in streams and rivers, then he and I disagree. I have not taken up much of the time of this House, and I do not intend to do so now, for two reasons: First, on account of my disability, I could not stand up to express myself as I would wish to do; second, I can tell a story perhaps that will illustrate my position. I had an old friend in Nova Scotia whom I had assisted in placing in a council. He had served there for three years without saying a word, and about the expiration of his time I said to him: "Old man, say something so as to let the people know that you are there." He

said: "It is necessary to be here for three years to know what to say without making a fool of yourself."


William Duff: Why are you speaking now?


Peter Francis Martin: Louder. I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) if we really have a fishing industry in Nova Scotia. I am sure he will answer "yes," and so will I, and we have a good one, one profitable for him as well as for others. But last year, returning from Ottawa, while I was at Montreal waiting for my train, I dropped into a theatre. About that time the Victory Loan was on and pictures were being thrown on the screen showing why we should purchase bonds, the reason, of course, being that we might assist our Allies, and so on. The pictures started from the West, showing the wheat fields with the magnificent crops of wheat and all the rest of it. Then pictures were shown of the shipping of the wheat to the elevators and the work of loading, and it was said that this was what we were spending the money for in order to assist our Allies. We came, however, from the West to Ontario and Quebec, and very nice things were said about those provinces. But we arrived .at New Brunswick, and on the screen this was said: "New Brunswick is noted for its coal and steel industries." I do not know of any such industries in New Brunswick. Then, we came further East, and we were told: "Prince Edward Island is noted for its immense fisheries. What a joke! I do not know where Nova Scotia was all this time, but that w.as no fault of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, for the reason that the then Minister of Finance had a stupid bunch at Ottawa. I inquired where this information was obtained, and I was told: "Oh, the Publicity Committee at Ottawa." That accounts for how that happened. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) said many things in his speech, and he really quoted Scripture. I think he must have been tutored by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) because he quoted to the extent that our Lord had sent Simon to cast the net in which he caught multitudes of fishes. But, perhaps, the net was a little larger at this time, and our Lord went somewhat further and said to Simon: "Go forth; fear nothing; you will catch men later on." I think we have caught the hon. member for Lunenburg not treating this Government fairly for what they have done.
He read and gave us fine, grand advice, but I would ask him: WTas the fishing industry in Nova Scotia worth while in 1910? I think echo answers, yes. What did his friends, the then Minister of Finance, now the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the leader of the Opposition in this House to-day (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and the hon. member for Antigon-ish (Mr. Sinclair) do for the fishing industry in Nova Scotia in those days? Nothing that we know of. Then why blame? Why not give credit where credit is due? From 1911 up to to-day many and many good things have been done by this Government for the fishing industry of Canada, and particularly of Nova Scotia. I do not wish to waste the time of this House, as it has been wasted by other hon. members, by putting on Hansard all that has been done by this Governmet for the fishing industry of Canada and Nova Scotia particularly.


Mr. POWER:: Where is Nova Scotia?


Peter Francis Martin: It is not in Quebec anyway. I shall not place these facts on Hansard-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is Nova Scotia-


Peter Francis Martin: Sit down. I shall publish these facts as to the fishing industry in the press and they will show that the hon. member for Lunenburg has not given to the Government that credit which is due them, and I hope these facts will make him change his mind in the near future.


Mr. KAY:: While we are on the subject of fishing, having heard from the far West and the 'far East, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the question of net or seine fishing in Missisquoi bay. Two years ago I brought before the House and before the minister the .question of the prohibition of net fishing in Missisquoi bay. The inhabitants of the country surrounding this bay have long been accustomed to fish with seines for six weeks in the spring of the year, from the 1st of March to the 15th of April. A great many of these men earn their livelihood from this pursuit. I have estimated that at the present price of fish the catch of these fishermen in the six weeks would amount to $21,000. But this Government, by an Order in Council passed on the 18th of February, 1918, prohibited net fishing in Missisquoi bay. The Order in Council was based on the advice of the Interntional Joint Com-

mission on Fisheries, and I have before me the evidence taken .before that commission which was brought down in a return a few days ago. The Canadian members who sat upon that commission were: Mr. Hazen, now Chief Justice of New Brunswick; and Mr. Found, of the department here. I am surprised to find by the evidence that the only witnesses heard were representatives of the states of Vermont and New York. The Canadian members of the commission did not think it was necessary even to invite any Canadians who were conversant with the situation in Missisquoi bay, to refute the evidence given before that commission by these other witnesses. I am going to read a few extracts from the evidence. The first is headed "The Lake Champlain situation":
Chairman Redfleld:	I understand that our
friends from Vermont, who are interested in the lake Champlain situation, are here, and we shall be pleased to hear from them.
The first witness called was Commissioner Patrick, representing the Vermont Fish and Game League. Mr. Patrick seemed to take the ground that as the United States had become our Allies in the war it was only proper that this country should grant any request made by the United States. This is what he says:
If there was ever a time in the history of this North American continent when Canada could ask a favour of the United States or when the United States could ask a favour of Canada, it would seem to me that that time is the present, when our boys are fighting side by side with your boys and when both countries are linked together in an effort to win a world-wide war for democracy. With the present good feeling that seems to exist between the two countries, for that reason, we feel that we now have a right to ask that the seining or drawing of nets in Missisquoi bay be discontinued, and we hope this request will receive impartial and careful consideration and will be granted.
The next witness was Fish Commissioner Linus Leavens, Chairman of the Vermont State Fish Commission. He says:
Our people are very much interested in the development of the inland waters of lake Champlain as a source of supply for food and game fishing.
The next witness was Mr. Loomis, Chairman of the Lake Shore Transportation Company. He says:
I am engaged in the operation of hotels and steamboats on lake Champlain. Our business is largely that of a tourist character, and among the tourists a large number are hook and line anglers. Their attention is attracted to Vermont because of the hook and line angling in lake Champlain. The continuation of the seining has had a very serious effect on hook and line fishing.

This argument is not a good one, as I think I can prove to the minister.
It is now three seasons since seine fishing has been abolished in Missisquoi bay and to-day there are fewer sporting fish than there were three years ago. The reason is this: Missisquoi bay has a great number of fish know as perch. This is a small active fish that feeds on the spawn and young minnows of other breeds. Out of the total catch of fish in Missisquoi bay 82 tons were perch and about 17 tons wall-eyed pike or dore which is the fish the Vermonters wish to preserve for their tourist traffic. You can readily understand that if these large numbers of perch are left to breed and increase in the lake they will very soon entirely destroy all the game fish. At present that lake is absolutely infested with perch. The angler drops his line in the bay, swarms of perch crown about his bait and he gets a small fish weighing about half a pound.
The next witness before the commission was Mr. Titcomb, Fish Commissioner of the State of New York. He says:
Here on lake Champlain there are millions of dollars Invested in summer homes and hotels, and certainly something should be done in the way of protection. The pike-perch is looked on in this lake as a game fish. It is one of the few places in the country where the pike-perch is regarded as a game fish. It is a great thing for that section to have people able to catch them.
In the course of his evidence further on he says:
Missisquoi bay elects representatives on the issue, also, the same as is done on our side. Your fishermen elect members of Parliament by campaign funds on this issue, and the same thing is done by fishermen in Vermont in connection with the Vermont legislature, and men on our side assist in helping your members of Parliament to get elected, to keep up fishing on that side.
I may say that as far as I am concerned that is entirely untrue. I received no assistance from the American at the time I was elected. Mr. Titcomb says further:
If we can get the rough fish out of the lake-
Rough fish being the perch and others like the bullpouts.
-without interfering with the fish tha{ bring these people into the region and that have brought in property there so that it has increased from a very small, nominal value to an immense amount, increasing the wealth of the surrounding country by bringing in beautiful homes, well and good.
Even this Vermont commissioner realizes the fact that these rough fish should be taken out of the lake. At the end of the evidence:

Commissioner Hazen: Are there any other States that border on the waters of lake Champlain except Vermont and New York?
Mr. Titcomb: No. Sir.
Commissioner Hazen: And has all fishing been abolished there?
Mr. Titcomb: All net fishing.
Commissioner Hazen: Net fishing, as well as seine fishing?
Mr. Titcomb: Yes, sir, every kind.
This is the way commissioner Hazen sums up:
We have listened; gentlemen, especially Mr. Found and myself, the Canadian members of the Commission, with very much interest to what has been said by you gentlemen from New York and Vermont, and I have no hesitation in saying that I think they have made out a very strong case.
Further on he says:
I think, in view of what you have said, that the matter will be taken up by the Canadian department dealing with fisheries, and X feel that they will be impressed, as Mr. Found and myself have been impressed, by the facts presented. I think very little time will elapse before the question will be fairly met, with the idea of preserving the fish in the lake. While we have not heard what may be said by the people on the Canadian side with regard to this matter, it appears to us at the present time that this fishing by nets should be abolished and that only fishing by hook and line should be allowed. In that way the fish will be preserved and those waters will continue to be a source of delight to tourists who enjoy the fishing. I think in the long run such action as is suggested will be very much in the interest of all.
Our commissioner, the present Chief Justice of New Brunswick, commented upon the fact that no Canadians had been called to give evidence but he dismissed that with a wave of his hand. Is that the position wich our representatives on the International Joint Commissions take as regards the rights of Canadians? In the course of some of the correspondence which took place between the department of Marine and Fisheries and the Fish Commissioners of Vermont and New York there are a few extracts I would like to read to the committee. Here is a letter from Mr. Loomis to Mr. Titcomb:
We want to all pull together, and it seems to me as if we can break up this piratical crowd of Canadians in Missisquoi County. They and the fish buyers are probably the only ones who are anxious for this thing to go on. There is work yet to do on this question, and I trust you will continue to give us your valuable assistance.
Here is a copy of a letter received by Mr. Loomis from a friend located in Alburg, Vermont which is situated on the American side of Missiquoi bay:
The pirates are all at work. They are chopping ice preparatory to fishing In a large scale. Shanties are all placed, large gangs of men are
chopping in order to make the first haul March 1st. Ice awful thick. Above in response to telegrams received Saturday and yesterday from Quebec to ''go ahead". Licenses are on the way.
Naturally the Canadian fishermen are jubilant, and often remark "to H... with the d... Yankees and Ottawa Government. Quebec can ruu their own business", etc., etc. Likewise the American fishermen are mad. thoroughly mad, and the question is, "We'll get all we can. Fish buyers from Boston and New York are here on every train.
That letter was sent to Mr. Desbarats Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries and in acknowledging it to Mr. Titcomb Mr. Desbarats uses this curious language:
You are no doubt in a position to closely follow the conditions through your local officers, and if you will inform me of any steps being taken towards irregularities we should endeavour to see that the necessary measures are taken to have the law fully enforced.
In order that the minister may be fully seized of the geography of lake Champlain, I wish to correct a statement made in an official communication from him. I hold in my hand a letter written by the minister on this question in which he states:
But a small portion of the lake is in Canadian territory, and the States of Vermont and Massachusetts in which by far the greater portion of it lies,-
I wish to point ont to the minister that lake Champlain is bounded on one side by the State of Vermont and on the other by the State of New York.
In view of the fact that this Order in Council was passed at the request of the United States authorities, espcially the authorities of the States of Vermont and New York, and was practically granted by our section of the commission owing to the fact that they were our allies-of course it seemed that as such we must grant them every request they made-and in view of the fact that no Canadians (none of the fishermen and none of the people from this side of the line) were consulted or asked to give evidence before the commission, I ask the minister if he does not think it would be fair to re-open the case and heaT what our people have to say. If he will grant that request, I can produce a great deal of very interesting evidence. The fishermen on this side of the line who come to Missisquoi bay for the purpose of catching bass-of which there were formerly a great many in the lake-all assure me that since seining has been prohibited bass and pike-perch have decreased very much, while perch have greatly increased. As I said before, there is a very insignificant number of pike-perch caught with seines in the spring, as seining is stopped on the 15th April at the time the

fish have commenced to spawn. The people of the country surrounding Missisquoi, by the permitting of seining, would 'be supplied with a great quantity of good, fresh fish at a season of the year when it is veTy much in demand, and the anglers would enjoy very much better fishing if this vast quantity of perch could 'be taken out of the lake every year. Two years ago, at the time I brought to the attention of the minister the fact that this seining had been going on for a great many years, I stated that the fishermen were accustomed! to prepare for their fishing a week or two in advance, that many of them at that time had bought new equipment which represented to them a considerable amount of money, and that the Order in Counoil prohibiting seine fishing was passed on the 18th February, and only published on the 26th of that month, four days before seining was to commence. I then asked the minister if he could not see his way clear to recommend the reimbursement to these men of the amount they had spent in purchasing new equipment. I am sorry to say the minister could not see his way clear to granting that request, and these men still have their seines unused. They have not broken the law in any way, they have observed the rules which the Government made by Order in Council, and therefore I appeal to him very strongly to have the case re-opened, or better still to immediately pass an Order in Council restoring the rights which Missisquoi bay enjoyed in former years.


Mr. McMASTER:: I propose to detain the committee very briefly indeed while I offer a few observations in support of the case made out by the hon. member for Missisquoi for the re-opening of this question of seining for fish in Missisquoi bay I can quite understand that at the first glance, after only a cursory examination of the subject, it would appear that if you stop netting fish in any great body of water there would be more fish which would be caught by hook and line. But it would appear that the experience of the last few years is to the contrary; that in lake Champlain the prohibition of seining for the rough, or less valuable, breeds of fish has resulted in their very great increase, and in the comparative decrease of the game fish-the black bass, the pike, and fish of that character. Now it would appear that no one could object to the object of this legislation. The object was to develop the game fish in lake Champlain I have to remark, however, that the regu

lation in question was arrived at on very slight evidence and without proper opportunity to the Canadian fishermen to present their case. However, it is rather to the future than to the past that I wish to look. I would like to see this matter reopened. I would like to have the question looked at in the light of the experience that the last three years have afforded, because it does seem to me reasonable to argue that if the rough fish are taken out of this lake there will be more food for the game fish, and the spawn of those fish will be protected from the ravages of the coarser varieties. This is a matter which does not merely concern the fishermen at Missisquoi, whom to characterize as "pirates" is very improper; they are very decent people who live there and earn their living in the summer through acting as guides and fishermen, and who fish in the early spring in a commercial way and are able to make a decent livelihood for their families in that manner. But there is a more important feature of the situation, and it is this: There has been a tremendous development on both sides of lake Champlain by summer resorts. But lake Champlain-beautiful lake as it is- is only somewhat as beautiful as the country that lies to the east and to the north of it, the Switzerland of Canada, the Eastern Townships of the Province of Quebec, one of the counties of which I have the honour to represent in this House. There is no more charming part of Canada than the Eastern Townships. Lake, river, mountain, forest and fertile field all combine in a most pleasant variety to make this the most beautiful district of Canada in the minds of a great many thinking Canadians. I know that other members think that they represent the most beautiful counties in Canada, but I challenge comparison with the Eastern Townships for beauty of scenery, salubrity of climate, and purity of -water.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I accept my hon. friend's challenge. It is well known that the Gatineau is the Switzerland of Canada.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What about the county of Charlevoix-Montmorency for scenic beauty?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Gatineau may be described as the Tyrol of Canada,* but the Eastern Townships are our Switzerland.


William Duff: What about Nova Scotia?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Nova Scotia no doubt has also many beautiful spots. As a matter of fact Canada is replete with beautiful

spots. The leader of the Opposition and the members for Queen's will declaim on the beauties of Prince Edward Island, and others will tell us of the beauties of the lower St. Lawrence. Prom the Atlantic to the Pacific Canada is full of natural beauties. But the point I wish to make is that that is an opening for a tremendous development of tourist traffic through the Eastern Townships. We have good railway connection by the Boston and Maine, the Central Vermont and the Canadian Pacific, with the great centres of population not only of our own country but of the United States, and there is a great opportunity for the development of the summer resort business. That being the fact, it is incumbent upon the minister, it seems to me, to open this question again to see whether a mistake has not been made, in order that the fishing in the Mississquoi may be improved. That the member for Mississquoi (Mr. Kay) and myself, from the information we have at our disposal, believe that it was a mistake to prohibit seine fishing, and that the removal of the rough fish in the lake will result in the amelioration of
the conditions for game fish.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Chairman, I
move that further consideration of this item be postponed, to permit my hon. friend the Minister of Health (Mr. Rowell) to present his Estimates.
Item stands.
Department of Health, $727,500.
Adulteration of Food and the administration of the Act respecting fertilizer, fraudulent marketing and commercial feeding stuffs, $90,000.


Mr. ROWELL:: I move to amend this
item by striking out the words:
Act respecting fertilizer, fraudulent marking and commercial feeding stuffs.
and substituting therefor the words:
Acts respecting Food and Drugs andi Honey and Maple Products.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why amend the i^em
at this stage?	,


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amendment is quite within the rules. There is no change in the destination of the funds, but since these Estimates were framed the Acts in question have been amended and are known by different names, and this is simply for the purpose of substituting the new names of those Acts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an
increase of $20,000 over last year. How does that become necessary?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The increased estimate is due to two causes. First, it is intended to provide for the establishment in the city of Montreal of one of the small laboratories which we use in the Food Adulteration Branch. At the present time we have laboratories in Winnipeg, Halifax and Vancouver, and it has been found desirable to have one at Montreal. A number of cases have arisen within the last year where it was important to have an examination of the samples of food taken, and in order to have such examination it is necessary in the interests of the proper enforcement of the law to have a small laboratory available in Montreal. Its estimated cost is $10,000. The other increase is due to larger amounts necessary to provide for the pay of the inspectors appointed under the Act for the enforcement of the law. Unfortunately during the past year a number of these men have resigned because they did not feel the compensation was adequate, and in replacing them we have had to pay larger remuneration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were the new ones appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. Then there were also some giving part time to the Inland Revenue and part time to the food administration. They resigned their positions as inspectors under these Acts and are devoting their whole time to Inland Revenue work. The increased duties under these Acts will require the whole time of the new men appointed. These men will not only have their duties as inspectors under the Act relating to Food and Drugs, but they will also have to render assistance in enforcing the provisions of the Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act and the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister give the names of the food inspectors in Nova Scotia and their salaries?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Halifax, R. J. Waugh.
He has been receiving $1,250. It is considered that his salary should be increased, and this will be done if the commission approves.


William Duff: Is he still Deputy Inspector
of Weights and Measures?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. He is now become
solely an inspector under these Acts.


William Duff: But he has been Deputy
Inspector of Weights and Measures?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know. I know some of these men did work under the Inland Revenue Act and under this Act, but in future they are working solely under these Acts. This man was paid under this Act before, so I assume he must have given his whole time to it. At Sydney, E, T. MacKeen, salary $1,200. Those are the only two in the province of Nova Scotia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is the inspector
at Sydney?


Newton Wesley Rowell: E: T. MacKeen.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is he not an officer of the Inland Revenue Department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He would be under the
Department of Inland Revenue when the administration of this Act was under that Department. Then, when the administration of the Act was transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce he became an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and was one of the officials transferred to this Department when the admins-tration of the Adulteration of Foods Act came under the Department of Health.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think my hon.
friend's history of Mr. MacKeen's position is altogether wrong. He was appointed as Collector of Inland Revenue at Sydney some years ago, Mr. Fraser, of Pictou, was the chief officer of the Department in that part of Canada and Mr. MacKeen was second to him, I understand. I believe that a change has been made in his position.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He may have been originally appointed as Collector of Inland Revenue but more recently he has been devoting his whole time to work connected with the enforcement of this Act.


John Howard Sinclair: Formerly there was an officer an the county of Antigonish who received a small salary under the title of Food Inspector. Is that office still in existence?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have no such officer there at the present time.


John Howard Sinclair: There
are not two classes of food inspectors

one class under another department, perhaps?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not that I am aware of.


William Duff: What is Mr. Waugh's salary?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is $1,250.


William Duff: I know Mr Waugh very well, though he is a resident < f Halifax. For a

number of years he has visited Lunenburg and other counties on the western shore of the province. A man of his ability is certainly entitled to much more than $1,250 a year. I do not know how he can live in Halifax on that salary. If the Civil Service classification gives him only that amount, the minister should see that these officials are properly paid.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is my intention to recommend that four inspectors who have been a long time in the service at important centres be classified as senior inspectors and receive $1,680 a year. Mr. Waugh is one of them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who are the others?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The others are at Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg respectively.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is Mr. MacKeen's salary?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is $1,200.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly thought that Mr. MacKeen was getting a larger salary than that. Mr. MacKeen does not live in my riding, nor is he on my side of politics; nevertheless I say of him that there is not a more efficient officer in Canada. He is a scholarly man, fairly well up in years and cannot give his attention to anything other than the business of the Government, in which he has been engaged for a long time. It is absolutely impossible for him to live in Sydney on a salary of $1,200; he could not rent a respectable house and provide the other necessaries of life for that amount. If the department expects to retain the services of Mr. MacKeen they should give him more than $1,200. It would be much kinder to say to him:	"We will not keep you;
we will dispense with your service," and thus allow him to do something else, rather than keep him at a salary upon which it is impossible for a man of his position and standing to live in Sydney, where it is just as expensive to live as in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All these salaries, of
course, are supplemented by a bonus. Mr. MacKeen, I suppose, is a married man?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then he would get in addition to his salary a bonus of $420. The classification of the Department of Health has not yet been completed. Without a doubt the four inspectors whom I have mentioned should receive increases of salary to the extent that I have suggested;

the other salaries will be under review when the commission takes up the application of the classification to these positions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If Mr. MacKeen were getting $1,600 with $400 bonus he would be getting $2,000 a year. Well, that is not a fat salary for a married man who has to keep house in Sydney. No matter how much we are pressing for economy just now along every line it is not right to ask men of Mr. MacKeen's attainments to work for less than $2,000 a year, particularly when they have to live where prices are at top-notch.


John Howard Sinclair: What
are these officers doing? The present Government kept in office for some years in my county an inspector who really had nothing to do; he had no food to inspect except that contained in the porridge pot in his own kitchen. He received a small salary from the Government just the same.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That must be the one
that has disappeared.


John Howard Sinclair: I am
pleased to hear that the office has disappeared. I congratulate the minister on taking that step. I stand for economy, and anything like that is so rare on the part of this Administration that I think I ought to speak about it. What about the second part of this item, administration of the Act respecting fertilizers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: An amendment struck
that out. The Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act and the Fertilizers Act are now under the Department of Agriculture.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. friend has retained supervision over the bees, if I mistake not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are still here.


William Duff: Do I understand the minister to say that he intends to appoint new officials. If so, how does he intend to appoint them?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no intention of appointing officials where we have not had officials in the past; but as I explained in answer, I think, to the leader of the Opposition, some officials have retired, and we have not so far succeeded in getting persons to fill their places. Appointments will be made by the Civil Service Commission who have been asked to advertise for and secure the additional men needed. We contemplate 25 inspectors for the whole of Canada.


William Duff: My experience of the Civil Service Commission is that they do not
know their business, and the sooner we repeal the Civil Service Act, the better for the country. I should like to know how the minister satisfies himself that the Civil Service 'Commission can appoint at Halifax or Vancouver a suitable man, say in connection with adulteration of food. My opinion is that the minister or his deputy head can do better in that regard than the Civil Service Commission.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is a question of
policy which has been deeded already; it is the whole question of the patronage system or the Civil Service Commission. I do not think it is profitable to enter into that question to-night, and I do not think it is germane to this issue. From my experience of appointments, I may say that on the whole the Civil Service Commission is doing very well in that regard, and I believe they have made exceedingly good appointments, where they have made them so far, in the Department of Health.


John Howard Sinclair: My criticism of the whole of this item is that it looks very much as if the minister were struggling to find something for this new department to do. I never saw such a mixture before-adulteration of food, proprietary or patent medicines, housing, bees, pollution of boundary waters,, marine hospitals, quarantine, immigration and medical inspection, research and venereal diseases. These are various things that are collected together in order to make an excuse for a new department which is to be called a Department of Health, presided over by.a minister with a salary of $7,000, a deputy with a salary of $5,000, and a large number of officials under them who, to my mind, are not needed at all. It strikes me that the mixture which is to be found in this item is pretty good proof that there was no necessity for building up this big administration, and these things are gathered together as an excuse for spending a great deal of money in a new department. Formerly,. the business of this country was done by about fourteen departments. I do not know how many there are now; but I think there is an increase of about 50 per cent in the number of departments, and I hope we are going to find the end of that pretty soon. It is quite proper that there should be some one to look after health matters; but I do not think it was at all necessary that there should be a Department of Health, a very expensive machinery built up for that purpose. This work could
[DOT]3542

have been done in some other way, perhaps by having a head under some minister as is the case in many other departments, without incurring .so much expense as we seem to be incurring here. We are taking small items away from other departments and placing them under this one, in order apparently to build up a new department at an enormous expense to the country.
Proprietary or patent medicines, $10,000.


William Duff: What is this for?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This is to make the necessary provision for carrying out the Act passed last session relating to proprietary and patent medicines, and this Act, as my hon. friends will recall, imposed some very important restrictions in connection with the sale of proprietary or patent medicines, particularly as to the character of the drugs that might be contained in them, prohibiting the use of opium and other narcotic drugs in certain preparations. It also provided for the creation of an advisory board to settle certain matters arising under the Act, and the additiohal amount is to cover both these items. As a matter of fact,, under the Act, provision is made for charging a fee for each patent of proprietary medicine registered under the Act, and the proprietor must take out an annual license for its sale. It is considered, in fixing the fee, that sufficient revenue should be derived to pay the cost of administration; that is the basis upon which the Act ii being worked out, so that I do not anticipate any more will be spent than the amount actually received from the druggists of the country for the licenses which they must take out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The increase
is a very big one, and I do not know that the minister is quite satisfied as to the necessity of such an increase.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that we are putting into force a new Act, new in the character of its requirements from the druggists of the Dominion. It is difficult to say what the exact cost of administration will be. I hope it will not reach $10,000; but we have no other means of getting funds to provide for the administration of the Act than by coming down to Parliament and asking for an appropriation. Therefore, >ve have inserted in the Estimates a sum which we believe will be amply sufficient. On the other hand, we are making provision to secure, through the

license fees charged under the Act, a revenue which we believe will fully offset the expenditure. Let me give simply one item. The members of the Advisory Board, which is being constituted from amongst the foremost physicians and pharmacists of this country, are each paid an annual fee of $500 and their travelling expenses in coming to Ottawa to attend meetings of the board. Under the Act of last, session, they have certain very important functions to perform, one of which is to determine the degree of medication necessary in drugs containing alcohol, to prevent their use as an alcoholic stimulant and to make them properly medicines and not liquids sold as a beverage. Under the Act as passed, this board is given final authority to determine that, and it is a matter of pharmaceutical or chemical skill to determine it. That is one very important function they have been asked to perform and they have already been called upon to determine that in the case of a number of patent and proprietary medicines. In addition, there is a whole list of drugs named in the schedule to the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act the use of which may be deleterious to health and yet the use of which in limited quantities under certain conditions may be beneficial. The board are the final authority to pass upon what quantities of these scheduled drugs may be used in any patent- or proprietary medicine. Hon. members will see that they are called upon' to perform important duties, and we have chosen the best men in Canada for that position.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are the .members of that board?
,Mr. ROWELL:	The board consists of
Dr. A. Blackader; Dr. Chas. F. Heebner, of the College of Pharmacy at Toronto; Dr. R. D. Rudolph; Professor J. E, Jiecours,-and 'Dr. A. McGill. Professor Lecours is of Laval University, I think, and Dr. Blackader of McGill.


William Duff: What about Dr. Rudolph?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He is of Toronto.


William Duff: A strange name for Toronto.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He is a good man notwithstanding the name. We have secured some of the best experts in Canada to deal with these particular problems, and the board as -named is, I think, the strongest we can secure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How were they appointed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: By Order -in Council under the Act.	i


John Howard Sinclair: Will this
money all be spent at the head office?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, in so far as it is
spent.


John Howard Sinclair: It strikes me that this item should appear as salaries instead of "proprietary or patent medicines..'


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not for salaries. The salaries of the officers who administer the Act come under Civil Government. These are expenses incidental to the administration of the Act. In addition to the advisory board to the members of which we pay $500 a year, plus travelling expenses, we have the travelling expenses of the officials in the administration of the Act. Stationery also constitutes an important item under this Act. License foirms and circulars have to be sent out in large numbers, particularly in bringing into operation a new Act about which there is a certain amount of misunderstanding, and where you must be in constant communication with all the druggists throughout Canada, of whom there are thousands. This item is to cover all expenses of this character.


William Duff: As the minister is such a great believer in the Civil Service Commission, why did not the commission appoint the Advisory Board?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because the Act provided they should be appointed by the Governor in Council.


William Duff: Then why does the Act go outside the Civil Service Commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not responsible for the framing of the Act. It was the Act I was called upon to administer.


William Duff: In other words, the minister is "passing the buck"?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was this Act passed before the minister was joined by the President of the Privy Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it was passed last session.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has not the minister to share responsibility for the Act with his colleagues?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Absolutely.


William Duff: Why not answer my question? Why were they appointed by Order in Council instead of by the Civil Service Commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because the Act so
provides.


William Duff: That is not a proper answer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is a good one.


Jacques Bureau: I thought that every appointment within the power of the Government, even to the staff of the House of Commons, was, after the passing of the Civil Service Act, to be made by the Civil Service Commission. I thought the Civil Service Act overrode every provision in every other statute passed before that Act which gave any man or minister power to appoint. That was the intention, as expressed by the members of the Government and all those who defended the Civil Service Act when it was before the House.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is evidently " under a misapprehension. These men are not officials of the Government; they are not members of the Civil Service. They are simply appointed to this board because of their professional skill to settle certain! technical matters connected with the administration of thic Act, for which they are paid a fee fixed at $500.


William Duff: It is a salary.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it is a fee of $500, We decided that was a fair fee for their professional services given as members of this board.


William Duff: I do not object to the appointment of these men, but I object to some officials being appointed by Order in Council and others by the Civil Service Commission when the Government wants to "pass the buck". My idea is that all officials should be appointed by responsible heads, not by this farce down town in the Hunter Building called the Civil Service Commission.
Housing, salaries and general expenses, ex-XJenditure 1919-1920. from Demobilization Appropriation Act, 515,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does that mean?	[DOT]


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the expenditure had come out of the general vote last year instead of out of the demobilization vote, it would have appeared in the second column. The expenditure last year for the administration of the Act was approximately $20,000. No item appears under the heading of 1919-20 because the expenditure last year came out of the demobilization vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does this mean that $15,000 was paid out of the demobilization vote last year for "housing-salaries and general expenses?"


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount expended last year was approximately $20,000, which came out of the demobilization vote. The Government's housing policy was part of the programme of re-establishment of returned soldiers, and it consisted in making provision for loaning $25,000,000 to the provincial governments to enable them to make advances to municipalities and individuals for the erection of houses. The Government did not charge against the municipalities the cost of administration so far as the Federal Government itself was concerned. It provided that money, and provided it out of the demobilization vote, because the Government believed it related to the re-settlement and re-establishment of our returned men, and therefore fairly came within the scope of the demobilization vote. We could have taken a special vote for it last year, but that was not done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does this come under the Department of Health, instead of under Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because housing has a very close relationship to health and was being administered by a committee of the Cabinet, of which I happened to be the chairman. Therefore, when the Department of Health was formed, it was intimated to the House at the time that housing would probably be assigned to that department. Housing comes under the Department of Health in Great Britain. They recognize that good housing bears so close a relationship to the physical and social welfare of the people that it constitutes a proper branch of the Department of Health, and so in Canada, as in these other countries,, it comes under this department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister give us some details of this expenditure? Who are the salaried officials and what is the nature of the general expenses in the administration of this Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The chief officer administering the housing regulations of the Government has been Mr. Adams, the Town Planning Expert of the Commission of Conservation, but he was not paid anything extra for this work. The salary he received from the Conservation Commission, as their Town Planning Adviser, covered his services to us in administering the housing regulations. Mr. Adams had to have assistance in carrying on his work-two expert helpers, an engineer and an architect, and also the necesfMr. Mackenzie King.]
sary office staff. The expenditure referred to covers the salaries of his assistants.


William Duff: How were they appointed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were all appointed through the Civil Service Commission, or transferred from some other department. I think one was transferred from the Department of the Interior and the others were appointed by the commission.


John Howard Sinclair: The explanation given by the minister would seem to show that this money was voted out for the year ending March 31, 1920. We are now voting money for the current year 19201921. Do I understand the minister to say that he took the $15,000 out of the demobilization vote of last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I said was that the expense of administering these regulations last year was paid out of the demobilization vote. We are asking this year for a vote to cover the expenses of carrying out this service.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is that mentioned?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is only mentioned as
an explanation to show where the money came from last year.


John Howard Sinclair: That
does not refer to housing.


Newton Wesley Rowell: You have in the estimates one column of figures for 1920-21 and another for 1919-20. There is no item opposite housing in 1919-20. In the absence of an explanation it would appear that it wias an entirely new vote. There was an expenditure last year and the note is simply to explain where the money came from.


John Howard Sinclair: That is
a very indirect way of explaining it. Are there any other expenditures that were taken from the demobilization vote of last year.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are all kinds of
expenditures, as the statement submitted to the House at the time the demobilization vote was granted would indicate. I have not the figures before me but my hon. friend will recollect that when the demobilization vote was asked by the Prime Minister, or the Finance Minister, he submitted a statement setting out in detail the various departments of the Government or the various classes of services to which the moneys voted might be expected to be applied.


John Howard Sinclair: For war purposes?


Newton Wesley Rowell: For the purpose stated by the Government.


Jacques Bureau: Anything could be taken out of it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, because the Auditor General would see to it 'that no payment was taken out of that vote that did not come within the terms of the Act.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think the Government have any right to take this money out of the demobilization vote because this is not for war purposes. I have a very strong suspicion that if we had all the Orders in Council passed by the Government during this last year we would find a number of similar inroads made upon the demobilization vote. The minister ought to furnish us with the information before we go very much farther. it came to my knowledge g few days ago that a news agency had been started in the city of New York that had nothing whatever to do with the demobilization of soldiers or with the war, and yet it is paid for, by Order in Council, out of the demobilization vote. That is a very improper thing to do. Such a direct violation of the statute cannot be justified. If the expense of a news agency started after the war is over in order to provide a job for a needy supporter, is to be taken out of the demobilization vote, see where we will land. If the' Government can dip into the demobilization vote for any expenditure which is not authorized by Parliament we have come to a pretty pass in these matters. I think the minister, before he asks us to pass this item, ought to furnish the Committee with all the Orders in Council that, have been inroads upon the demobilization vote for various purposes and in the different departments. Without that we will not be able to know where we are in regard to this vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry I cannot
agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Sinclair). I do not think the demobilization vote of last year and the appropriation of all the moneys provided for by that vote are relevant to the item under' discussion at the present time.


Jacques Bureau: We are discussing item
63.
Housing-salaries and general expenses, expenditure 1919-1920, from Demobilization Appropriation Act, $15,000.
225*
If I understand aright this year is 1920-21 and this amount is taken from the demobilization appropriation. The position taken by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is absolutely right. Demobilization is a part of the war legislation when this housing scheme came before the House I opposed it and criticised it on the ground, first, that the Government had no right to lend money to richer people than themselves and, second, that if they undertook to give any assistance towards building houses they should do it for soldiers alone and not for the general public. I do not think you can properly charge this expenditure to the demobilization vote. I do not care what the Department of Public Health, the Prime Minister or anybody else says, I maintain this has nothing whatever'to do with the war. Tt is not right that demobilization and the war should be charged with the cost of a policy initiated by the Government in expectation of an election to try and gain popularity in the various provinces more especially as this expenditure was an uncalled for extravagance considering the financial position of the country. The Government loaned money to the provinces without any justification whatever. I do not see how we can camouflage this policy any longer by charging the war, war loans and Victory loans with money the Government desires to spend to create some popularity in the provinces. The position taken by the hon. member for Guysborough I think is absolutely sound, and that we ought to have some further explanation about this expenditure. Money voted for demobilization should not be paid to cover up the extravagance of the Government.


Georges Henri Boivin: Explanations concerning this item are in order but not all expenditures under the demobilization vote of last year.


Frank S. Cahill: How many soldiers have
availed themselves of the opportunity to build houses under this Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot give my hon.
friend the figures as to soldiers, but I can give him the figures as to the number of houses that have been built in each province so far. According to the statement prepared in April last the number of houses built was: Ontario, 1,184; Manitoba, 77; British Columbia, 50; Quebec, 10; New Brunswick, 33. A large number were also under construction at the sam4 time and others were under plan for construction in the present year. There were houses under plan for construction in the present year as follows:

Nom Sc/oitia, 100; Quebec, 130; Ontario, 4,000; Manitoba, 345; British Columbia, 245.


Frank S. Cahill: Why does ithe /minlister insist ttuaJt not only this vote, ibuit olthor legislatiooin' it/batt they have passed, ie for tlhe benefit of ithe solMiieiis? He has made /a gre/ait play ,abonit the soldiers, but he hiais, noit given us iany iniforrmaltion to show that there are any soldiers living in these houses. As a m/after otf fact if he had Ithe inlfontm/a-iion I think he would find tfhait Ithere rare mighlty few Of Ithem diving in theise 'bonuses that, he is talking iso much about, /and the money far which is taken oult of tlhe de-m/oibilizaltioin ifund. I wish the minister would 'stop /talking so much .about /the benefit /that is /being worked .for the soldier because it really /does holt /amount to anything. The /soldiers are getting sick of it; so are 'the people generally; /and so is th/is Parliament. lit is .about /time the Government got down to business, instead o/f /talking so much about what t/hey a/re doing fo/r the soldiers when they Wave absolutely no intention of doting /anything. Why make such misstnltemenlts Ito /the House? Tit. is a shame to be trea/ting the s/oldiers in the way this Goweimmientt is treating them; The soldiers outside are clamouring for assistance. they are clamouring for just legislation. and they are even asking for an election. Then my hon. friend comes here and tells us that he is doing this thing for the soldiers. I am surprised that he is not ashamed of himself.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend makes
the mistake of judging others by himself.


Frank S. Cahill: It is the minister who is making misstatements to the soldiers. I have not made any promises to them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister if he has information to show what proportion of these houses have been constructed in rural areas and what proportion in urban areas?


Newton Wesley Rowell: These have all been constructed in urban areas, or in districts immediately adjacent to urban areas. The regulations do not contemplate the erection of houses on farms for farm labourers, if that is what my hon. friend has in view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I have in view is this: These Estimates relate to the Health Department, I feel very strongly that the encouragement of buildings in cities, as against the encouragement of buildings in rural areas, is a tendency in the wrong direction, and it is one that the 
Minister of Health in particular ought to take into consideration. I do not know what the opinion of my hen. frien/d is- I would like to get it from him- as to whether or not it is in the national interest to encourage the construction of buildings in urban areas as against the construction off /buildings in rural areas. All these millions that have been voted have apparently gone to the construction of buildings in urban areas, thus encouraging the population to further congest the crowded centres which I think is detrimental to the health of the people, a fact which should be the primary consideration of this department.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We' were facing a condition and not a theory. The situation we faced was that there was a shortage of houses in urban centres when our soldiers returned to Canada. These regulations were intended to aid in relieving the congestion in the cities due to the large additional demand for houses caused by the return of our soldiers from overseas, and the fact that there had been relatively little house-building done during the war. The regulations were not intended to apply to rural areas. If a shortage of buildings exists in the rural areas it is a matter that the provinces can very well deal with. Under these regulations the buildings must be of a sanitary character, of a certain size, and possess sufficient light and air space, drainage, and all the conditions which make for a good, healthy, comfortable home at the cheapest possible cost.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My criticism
is that the Government by making these loans applicable exclusively to the urban centres is encouraging a possible tendency which should be well considered. I think we ought to consider very carefully, before we vote additional loans, whether we should encourage this tendency of the movement of the people to the cities at the expense of the country. I notice that in the miscellaneous items, No. 318, there is a loan of $25,000,000 to Provincial Governments to engage in the erection of houses on the terms and conditions set forth in the Order in Council. [DOT] I presume it is the administration of that amount twhich is being covered by the item No. 63 we are now considering. Is that correct?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is not a new vote.
The $25,000,000 is the vote of last year. The Dominion Government granted this sum as a loan to the provinces, in proportion to their population for the purpose I have
\

mentioned. This year we are simply providing for a re-vote of that portion of it which the provinces were not in a position to avail themselves of last year. Some of them were late in getting their housing plans under way, and did not ask for an advance last year. From others we received exceedingly strong recommendations that a larger sum should be voted this year in view of the growing demand for accommodation in the cities and towns. According to the opinion of some hon. members the Government went too far in voting the $25,000,000 referred to.
I think it was a measure designed in the public interest which will ameliorate the existing conditions and help considerably towards the betterment of the housing situation.


William Duff: As a matter of fact, it is
said that a great many of these houses are merely summer cottages built for people wrho already possess houses in the cities.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not aware that any such houses have been built. If any such dwellings have been constructed it would be contrary to the purpose for which the money was granted and a violation of the terms on which the money was loaned to the province.


William Duff: There should be a statement by the Government setting forth the conditions under which the money is loaned by the provinces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The provinces are the
borrowers of the money. They are the ones that must lay down the conditions' under which the loans are made. All that we require is that those conditions shall not be contrary to but in conformity with the general regulations which this Government has laid down in order to secure the kind of houses that I have referred to. Beyond that the provinces themselves take the responsibility, and we have not felt it necessary to do other than require reports from them. We have their obligation to repay us and we run no risk except that we loan them the money at >5 per cent-that is our contribution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In fixing the conditions under which the loans are made I think it would be wise to provide that the provinces should see that a certain percentage of the money is spent on cottages or houses in rural areas as well as in urban areas. Does the minister think it wise to permit public funds to be used exclusively for the purpose of erecting dwellings in urban centres?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the provinces are perfectly competent to do that for themselves. I do not think we should undertake it. At the present time there is a large demand for houses in the cities and towns throughout Canada, and the provinces are making these loans for the purpose of meeting an actual condition of serious congestion which exists. If people cannot get homes to live in they are crowded in flats and tenements and we will be duplicating to a limited extent the slum conditions of the Old Country. In so far as we can relieve the situation, it is our duty to do so, and that is the most pressing and urgent need. If the provinces consider it desirable to assist in the construction of dwellings in the country they have a perfect right to do so, using their own money for the purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister wants to eliminate the crowding, and possibly the creation of slums, in the cities, he will accept my suggestion. As it is, it seems to me that the Government's policy is going to encourage the building of houses in the cities rather than in the rural areas, and promote the tendency of the population to drift toward the urban centres. While the Government apparently has not any policy on the high cost of living, I think it might very well take this aspect of the question into consideration when making loans from the treasury.


John Howard Sinclair: The Act now works against the rural areas because there is no method by which a farmer under this system can borrow money to build a house. In the first place, as I understand it, the Dominion Government lend the money to the Provincial Government, and the latter lends it to the city, and the city in turn lends it to the builder of the house and takes security for the loan. But a farmer living in a country district where there is no machinery to deal with a third party has no chance to get a loan at all. The difficulty is inherent in the system devised by the Government, which is a system to build up the cities at the expense of the country.


Frank S. Cahill: How much money was loaned to each province under the scheme last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The return I have is made up for the fiscal year ending 31st of March last. British Columbia. $750,000; Man!

toba, $1,580,000; New Brunswick, $1,220,000; Ontario, $8,750,000; Quebec, $60,000. The amounts were advanced as each province submitted its housing plan, had it approved, and requested the advance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In what urban centres in the province of Quebec has advantage been taken of the Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no statement showing that information.


Jacques Bureau: Have not various demands been made by each province under agreement with the Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount which each province is to receive under the agreement with the Government has already been intimated by the Government to the Provincial Governments; it is the percentage which the population of each province bears to the total population of Canada on the basis of the census of 1911. On that basis so soon as a province submits its housing scheme and has it approved, it is entitled to advances just as it requests them. We do not exercise any detailed supervision as to when the advances should be made. The province of Quebec had its scheme approved, but it requested only $60,000 before the close of the last fiscal year.


Mr. ROBB:: Did I understand the minister to say that if a province submitted a plan to advance money for the building of houses in rural districts the federal authorities could approve it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the housing plan complied with the general regulations laid down by the Government upon which Parliament
voted the money, yes; that is all we require.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the minister the terms and conditions of the Order in Council of December 3, 1918?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have the Order here. It provides:
That the aggregate amount to be loaned to all provinces shall not exceed $25,0'00i,00'0, and the amount of loan to any one province shall not exceed the proportion of the said $25,000,000 which the population of the said province bears to the total population of Canada.
That the loans made hereunder may be for a period not exceeding twenty years, with the right to any province to pay off the whole or any part of the principal of the loan at any time during the said term.
I presume that the clause my hon. friend has in mind is the condition upon which advances may be made, which is No. 7:
Advances may be made as soon as a general scheme of housing shall have been agreed upon 
between the Government of Canada and the Government of the province applying for a loan hereunder.
Under that Order in Council a set of general regulations was prepared setting out the principles which should be applied in
the construction of homes to be aided by this loan. These general regulations were submitted to all the provinces for their consideration and comment, and they were advised that if they (lid not make any suggestions they would be deemed to have approved the regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where is the general scheme to be found?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is all printed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is that you have in your hand?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have here the general regulations covering the Housing project of the Federal Government, printed last session by order of the House, and distributed. Certain suggestions were made by some of the provinces, which if of any importance were given effect to, but they were of minor character in any case. So we had a general scheme agreed upon between the Federal Government and the provincial governments which was embodied in a further Order in Council. Then each province in turn prepared its scheme. It was at liberty to add any provision to these general regulations which it thought necessary in the interest of the province. British Columbia, I think, limited its grants to returned soldiers. I do not recall that any other province did so.


Frank S. Cahill: Would not the loan of $8,750,000 to Ontario be about its quota?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think it is probably very near it. If it is its quota, then Ontario cannot have any more. My hon. friend will see that when we come to the re-vote, the proportion, of the loan not taken up, it is available only upon the conditions of the original grant, and to the provinces which have not yet taken full advantage of the loan.


Frank S. Cahill: What does the minister mean by the 4,000 houses proposed to be built in Ontario? Where will the money come from for those houses?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Ontario did what none of the other provinces did,-added of its own provincial funds $2,000,000 to the amount loaned by the Federal Government. The whole of this amount has not so far been advanced by Ontario to the

municipalities. The province has borrowed funds from us for this purpose. Housing plans have been formulated by the different municipalities to put up the houses to which I made reference, and the amount will be advanced 'by the province to the municipalities as they comply with the provincial regulations. If there is not a sufficient sum available from the federal loan to complete those houses, the province must advance the money itself. The provincial government has passed an 'Act authorizing the guarantee of the bonds of municipalities for the purpose of erecting additional houses. The movement thus started in Ontario has developed such momentum that although the province cannot get further financial assistance from us, it is cooperating with the municipalities to provide the necessary funds to put up a Targe number of additional houses.


Frank S. Cahill: Do I understand that half the cost of the 4,000 houses projected for Ontario is paid by Ontario?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. Our information
from Ontario is that they are putting up a certain amount in connection with the loans to municipalities. We have not stipulated for it; it is no part of our undertaking; it is purely voluntary on their part.


Frank S. Cahill: What I want to get at is where the money is coming from for these -4,000 houses? My hon. friend is taking credit for the results of the expenditure of last year. He says that 1,184 houses were built; how much money was spent?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will
stop to think he will realize that where you are advancing money to a province and the province is advancing money to a municipality you do not have the houses all completed as of a certain date. Housing schemes are under way; plans are developing; certain houses are completed from month to month; others are in course of [DOT]construction; in other cases the ground is just being cleared. I gave the number of bouses reported to us as completed, together with the number reported as in course of construction and the number being planned. I do not know how many have been paid for. All we know is the amount we have advanced the provinces, and what the provinces have reported to ue as having been done.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the average price of the houses built by the provinces under ;the loan?


Newton Wesley Rowell: General regulations as
framed between the Federal and Provincial Governments provided different prices for different classes of houses. For a detached or semi-detached dwelling, frame, stucco on frame, or brick veneer, the maximum amount to be advanced, inclusive of the capital value of the site and necessary local improvements, wTas $3,000 if it was a house of four or five rooms inclusive of bathroom and small summer kitchen, and $3,500 if a house of six or seven rooms inclusive of bathroom and summer kitchen.
It has been found necessary this year, on urgent representation from the provinces, by reason of the increased cost of building, to raise these figures to $3,500 and $4,000 respectively.


Frank S. Cahill: Taking the average cost
of the house as only $3,000, the 4,000 houses projected in Ontario would involve an expenditure of $12,000,000, whereas Ontario has been advanced only $8,000,000. I do not get my hon. friend's point; he seems to be taking credit for something he is not doing. He claims that a great many houses have been built throughout the country, but we learn that the number completed is 1,180- about the number of houses built during the same period in the suburb of a second or third-class city in Canada. Apparently the provinces, outside of Ontario, are not asking for this money. The minister tells us about" the wonderful things that are being done in Ontario in the house-building line, but he is making no provision for the furnishing of any more money. Not only the members of the Opposition, but, I am sure, Parliament and certainly the people of Canada are getting tired of the minister's misstatements.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member knows that the statement he has made is untrue. I have not misstated any matter to the committee. My hon. friend repeatedly gets up, though, and does make misstatements. He surely should have some respect for the honour of a member of Parliament.


Frank S. Cahill: What misstatement did I make. I ask the minister to mention one misstatement that I made.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I do not think this is relevant to the item under discussion, and the expression that a member knowingly made an untrue statement is out of order.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister makes it relevant when he states that he is advancing money for 4,000 houses in Ontario when he has already advanced more than the quota

allowed to the province. It is against the rules to say that that is a deliberate misstatement, but for the minister to say that it is not is surely a reflection on his own common sense.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I could not reflect on my hon. friend's


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister had a proper vote for this expenditure last year, and if he applied the money to work and to items which were germane to the purposes of the vote, why does he come hack and ask for a vote this year? Moreover, what becomes of it when it is voted? The $15,000 is paid out; is it the intention to pay back something that was borrowed from some other department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the vote this year is to cover the expense of the administration of the regulations this year. Last year some $12,000,000 was loaned to the provinces under the regulations as administered last year. We have a re-vote this year of approximately $13,000,000, the balance of the $25,000,000, and this vote is to cover the cost of administration this year under the same regulations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that this money was taken out of the demobilization vote, a vote for other purposes, and the minister says that it was quite proper to do that, Well, if the money was voted and has been paid out, is that not the end of it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Ye3, I regret that I have not made myself clear. My hon. friend will see that this/is an item for housing, salaries and general expenses, and that the amount of $15,000 is in the column "1920-21." No expenditure is indicated in the Estimates as having been made for the corresponding item in 1919-20. The words "expenditure 1919-20, from Demobilization Appropriation Act," we put in as an explanation to show where the money came from for the corresponding appropriation of last year. We are not asking to recoup the last appropriation; we are now asking to vote Government expenditures for the year 1920-21. If the hon. member will look at his copy of the Estimates, he iwill see that the $15,000 itetm is under the 1920-21 appropriation.


William Duff: We are not here to decide about what money we voted last year and money which the minister, either legally or otherwise, took out of the demobilization Fund. What we are here to do is to vote money for housing, salaries and general expenses.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is it.

Mr, DUFF: Why do you not say what you want and what you mean? And why do you not amend item 63 the same as you amended item 61, so that people will understand exactly what you want? It is a simple matter to do this thing in a business like manner. When you say that you want housing, salaries and general expenses,, in 1920 from the Demobilization Appropriation Act, you are trying to fool some one. We cannot be fooled; we want the thing done rightly, and I would suggest that the minister amend this item the same as item 61 was amended, so as to make it plain.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is not quite in
order for the hon. member to say that the minister is trying to fool anybody, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw'that expression. I would also request him to address his remarks to the Chairman.


William Duff: I always endeavour to address the Chair, and I thought I did address it. If I did not, I apologise and I will in future endeavour to address the Chair properly. Perhaps I might put it in this way, that one of the minister's officials is trying to fool him. One thing is sure and' that is that somebody is trying to fool somebody, or the item would never have been inserted in the way in which it appears. It is quite evident that some of the officials in the department know that the minister does not know much about this matter, and they have tried to fool him and they have succeeded in fooling him. They, however,, cannot fool us, and before this item passes the minister should change it so that the people will understand what the minister really wants. Then we will vote this $15,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Had it not appeared that my hon. friend' does not understand this item, I should have thought it was so clear that anyone could understand it. That wording was inserted so as to explain where the money came from last year; but if hon. members do not wish that information, I have not the slightest objection to striking out the reference to the Demobilization Appropriation Act.


William Duff: The minister says that this is to give us information regarding something which was done last year. We are dealing with an appropriation for the present year. For myself, I can understand the item all right and the minister has talked about an hour and a half in order to make clear what he means. What I say

is that the minister does not understand this matter, or he would never have allowed his officials to word the item as it is worded, and the minister 'should see in future that his Estimates are brought before the House in a proper manner.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to amend item 63 by striking out the following words: "expenditure 1919-20 from Demobilization Appropriation Act", so that the item now reads "Housing, salaries and general expenses, $15,000."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, we are just beginning the item now. The minister can tell us in two minutes what this appropriation is for. We thought all the time it was for the work of last year.


Mr. ROW ELL:: I do not think my hon. friend is serious in that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think we should pass this item until we find out how an adjustment is to be made with the province of Ontario. We have been told that the province of Ontario received $8,000,000 last year, and we can fairly assume that the province spent a large part of that $8,000,000. The minister tells us that they have now 4,000 houses in course of construction and also that he has increased the value of a house from $3,000 to, I think, $4,000 or $4,500, and if we put the average at $3,000, as my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) has suggested, the amount that it will cost to build those 4,000 houses will be $12,000,000. That added to the eight millions is more than the share Ontario ought to get out of the $25,000,000. With a view of protecting the other provinces, I think, before we pass this item, the minister should explain how he expects to pay out of this fund $12,000,000 to meet the expenses for building 4,000 houses in Ontario.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already answered that once or twice, but I shall be glad to answer it again. Ontario does not get one dollar more than her proportionate share of this $25,000,000. Any additional money that is required must be provided by the province itself, and I have sufficient confidence in the Farmer-Labour Government of Ontario to believe that if they have undertaken to provide additional funds to the municipalities, to enable them to complete their housing schemes, they will doi so.


John Howard Sinclair: Then the minister was incorrect when he told us that
the department was providing for the construction of 4,000 houses in Ontario.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not say that the department was providing for the construction of 4,000 houses. My hon. friend asked how many houses had been built and how many were proposed, and I reported to the committee what the provinces reported to us. That is all the information I have. The information I gave to the committee was what the province of Ontario gave in its report to us.


Frank S. Cahill: The committee would not be interested in what the province *was doing outside of this appropriation, and this appropriation is the only thing we are interested in now. Is Mr. Adams at the head of^ this department that is spending this $15,000? And what proportion of his time is devoted to the affairs of the Dominion Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Adams is not at the head of it, because it comes under the Department of Health, and is under the deputy minister. But Mr. Adams is chief adviser in connection with this scheme, ' and he is not paid anything by the Government in respect of this work. By arrangement with the Commission of Conservation he gives his time to this work; he is paid by the Commission of Conservation.


Frank S. Cahill: To whom do the officials, the employees or clerks who look after this work report?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They would report to Mr. Adams, and through Mr. Adams to the deputy minister just, the same as such reports would come to the deputy minister in the case of any other branch.


Frank S. Cahill: How much of the time of Mr. Adams, through whom this report must go before it gets to the deputy minister, is devoted to the service of the Dominion Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Last year, I believe, his whole time was devoted to the service of the Government, divided between the Commission of Conservation and the housing work of the Federal Government. This year, I believe he has an arrangement with the Commission of Conservation by which he is entitled to take certain time off, a deduction being made from his salary for the time he takes off, but I am not familiar with the details of that.


Frank S. Cahill: The man who is looking after our interests in this matter might be

in Spokane, Washington, or in Texas while the work is going on and the reports made, and we would have to go down there and make a report through him in order to keep track of this business.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No difficulty has been experienced in the past.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister just told me that in the past this gentleman was devoting all his time to the -affairs of the Dominion of Canada, but that a different arrangement has been in force for some months. Does the minister not think it would be worth while to have in direct charge some man responsible to the deputy minister for the expenditure of this money?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said that there were officials under him. In Mr. Adams' absence, Mr. Parry is at the present time the next man in the office who reports to the deputy minister. There is no difficulty in administration.
Pollution of Boundary waters, $5,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this
to pay the salary of an official?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is to cover possible
expenditure in connection with the work of the International Joint Commission relating to the pollution of boundary waters. Under the Treaty of 1909 creating the International Joint Commission, provision was made forbidding the pollution of boundary waters to the detriment of the health of the inhabitants of the countries affected. Under that Treaty a reference was made to the International Joint Commission by the United States and Canada to investigate the existing condition of the boundary waters, particularly the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and I think one of the rivers of New Brunswick. They made a very extensive investigation and an exhaustive report, which showed a serious condition of pollution in certain sections of these international waters. There is now pending before the International Joint Commission a reference by the Governments of the United States and Canada to recommend what steps should be taken by the respective countries to put an end to this pollution, whether in the form of a new convention or by legislation to be enacted by the two countries. The Department of Health in Canada and the corresponding department in the United States are the advisers of the International Joint Commission in connection with this matter, and this item is to cover possible expenditure 
during the year in connection with that reference.
Mr. -SINCLAIR (Guysborough): At the head office?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Anywhere the expenses
may arise. It would cover travelling expenses, for instance. As a matter of fact the deputy minister and one assistant has already had to meet the International Joint Commission and the American experts. It might 'be that we shall have to get expert assistance in connection with this reference. This is not a hard-and-fast sum, but it is just to cover possible expenditure. I do not know that we shall require it all.


John Howard Sinclair: How
much was paid out under this head last year?
Mr. ROWELL. We did not have this item last year. It arose this year because the reference was made to the commission this year.
Marine Hospitals, including grants to institutions assisting sailors, $86,00'0.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very much interested in the latter part of this item, that is, the grants to institutions assisting sailors. There is in the Old Country an institution known as the Home and Foreign Seaman s Institute. It is an institute of long standing and officered by some of the very best men and women in the Old Land. It has branches in this country; one in Toronto, I think, another in Montreal, another in Quebec, and we happen to have one in my home town of North Sydney. The Government- has been assisting these institutions by small grants. The institution at North Sydney has been receiving for some years a grant from this Government of $100. Thousands of seamen call at our institute every vear and we do everything we can for them. I was going to ask the minister if he could not give a little bigger grant to the institution at North Sydney. Some of these institutions get $200, but we only get $100, and I think we should also get $200. Then we should be in the same position as the branch of the Institute at St. John, New Brunswick, which gets $200, I think, or $300. It is a very worthy cause, and the grant of $100 is only a small help. We beg and borrow to keep up the institute, and I really think we should get a little more if the minister thinks it can possibly be done. I would have gone home to-night long ago, but that I wanted to speak to the minister about this item.


Newton Wesley Rowell: One item I am urged to increase, and another to decrease. You see

how careful and economical I am, keeping all of these expenditures well within the limits. However, I will see whether we can put the institution at North Sydney on the same basis as the others. It will depend on the service being rendered. If the service rendered is equal to the service in the other places, then I think North Sydney should have the same grant. I will look into it and see. I can only speak of it on that basis.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is the first year
this vote has come under the Department of Health. The minister will find regular reports made by this institute annually, showing exactly what is being done.


William Duff: What is the increase for?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is an actual decrease this year. The influenza epidemic was very severe last year and it caused an abnormal increase in the expenditure. While there ;s a decrease as compared with last year there is an increase over the usual hospital charge, due to the increased cost of hospital accommodation.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister reached any decision on the application from the town of Cause r


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not given any decision yet, but at prsent I cannot see my way clear to give an affirmative answer. I have not yet finally disposed of it, but that is the situation up to date. My difficulty lies in establishing a new precedent, which would be quoted in all sections of the country where similar grants would be urged. My hon. friend knows haw strongly, the shipowners are protesting against the existing tax. If we go on making grants for building hospitals, I am afraid we cannot limit it to the port my hon. friend mentions. However, I have not finally disposed of the matter, but that is the impression I have up to date.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister could overcome the difficulty he mentions by imposing a similar liability on the town that makes the application. You would not have many applications if the town making the application was required to contribute a similar amount. If we are going to collect this tax from the ships in this country, we ought/ to assume the duty of providing for the sailors. We are not doing it at the present time. In certain places there is no provision made for taking care of sick sailors. The British system, which has been suggested by my hon. friend
(Mr. Stevens), is much better than ours. Under the British system the British Consul in any part of the world assumes the responsibility of taking care of a sick sailor. He sends him to a hospital, and looks after him. If the sailor is not able to join his ship the Consul pays his fare to England or wherever he belongs. The bill comes from the British Consul at that foreign port to the Board of Trade in England, and the Board of Trade transmits it to the Minister of Marine in Canada, who transmits it to the owner of the ship who has to pay it. So the sailor is looked after in every case. Under our system we are collecting large sums of money from the ships, but we are not assuming the responsibility of taking care of the sick sailors. In the town I refer to there is no hospital within many miles to take care of sick sailors. The sailors are put ashore, and' for anything the department has to do with them they may die on the shore because there is no place to which they can go. This is a system which should not continue. The department, if they will not do any work at all, should abolish this tax alto-gather or they should assume responsibility for taking care of the sick. This is trust money that the minister is collecting from the ships. When the minister takes the surplus of this money and puts it into the consolidated revenue fund he is- not doing right if the sailors are not looked after. They are not looked after. I could give instances where men have lost their lives because there is no provision made for taking care of them at distant places where no hospitals exist. Ilf we are to continue this system of collecting from the ships on the coast of this country we must assume the responsibility of taking care of the men.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to leave the impression that the department does nothing at all for sick sailors even where there is no hospital. We have a medical doctor at Canso and there is an arrangement for such accommodation as can be had in a private home. I agree that it is not as good as hospital accommodation but the department is doing everything it can to meet the situation there and to provide hospital accommodation.
Mr. McISAAiC:	What arrangements are
made regarding sick sailors in Prince Edward Island? There are three hospitals. Is any arrangement made with them to care for sick sailors?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are three medical
officers in Prince Edward Island-Dr. Tan-ton, Summerside; Dr. McLean, Souris; and Dr. Brehaut, Murray Harbour.
M. CHISHOLM: What salaries are paid to these men?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is only a limited service that they give. Dr. McLean receives $300, Dr. Tanton $250 and Dr. Brehaut $100.
Mr. MoISAAC: Where sailors are treated in hospitals, what are the hospitals with which an arrangement is made?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are treated in hospitals but I have not the names of those hospitals here. We have an arrangement with hospitals in Prince Edward Island for the treatment of sailors. I can get the names of the hospitals and the rates paid.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is one feature of this hospital arrangement that I have been trying to get righted for a long time. If a vessel carries on trade between different ports in the same province the sailors on that vessel do not enjoy the privileges of the sick mariners fund. If a vessel goes across the straits from my own county to Prince Edward Island the sailors enjoy the privileges of the sick marines fund, but if that vessel goes to Halifax and it does not pay to the sick mariners fund the sailors do not get the privileges of the fund.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am notyaw'are that the condition which my hon. friend refers to exists. On the Atlantic coast every one who is paying into the fund gets the benefit of it. It has not been considered desirable, apparently, by any Government, so far, to impose the obligation upon fishing vessels to pay sick mariners dues. If they pay them, the eick mariners are entitled to treatment.


Alexander William Chisholm: I do not mean the
fishermen; I mean traders. I know what I state to be a fact because I have had some experience in this line.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot give the hon.
gentleman the information to-night, but I will look it up and let him have it.


William Duff: What my hon. friend from
Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) says is quite correct. Local trading vessels do not come under the benefits of this fund. I know of a vessel in my county, that, before proceeding on a foreign voyage called at North Sydney. During the influenza epidemic

several of the sailors became sack but the hospital authorities would not take them in and some men had to be sent to their homes and others kept on the vessel. Some of them died. Vessels proceeding to a foreign port, but calling at a local port, should come under the Act.
Quarantine-salaries and contingencies of organized districts ; Public health in other districts ; Tracadie and D'Arcy Island Lazerettces ; Public Works Health Act; and expenses for boat for one half year, St. John Quarantine station, $262,500.


Mr. TURGEON:: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. friend that an extra amount is included and that the work that is being done is being very efficiently done with an appropriation which is not adequate to the maintenance of the service. So that this vote is to provide for an increase of $1,000 for maintenance,and an increase of $1,000 to the sisters for caring for the patients.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Let me offer my sincere congratulations to the minister.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is there any increase in the salaries to the medical officers at the

quarantine station at Grosse Isle, which is one of the most important in Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think I mentioned a little earlier-perhaps my hon. friend was not in at the time-that the Civil Service classification has not yet been applied to the Department of Health. I am therefore not able to 6tate what the salaries will be under the new classification, but some I think will have to be raised. Undoubtedly the service is of very great importance at the present time, and will be increasingly important for the next two or three years. The most unfortunate conditions exist in central Europe, and our quarantine and immigration officers will have to exercise extreme care in protecting Canada against the posible consequence of the transmission of some of the terrible diseases that are now ravaging the countries there.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What ds the number of the Grosse Isle staff?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Approximately, forty.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How many medical men are there?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Three.
Immigration and Medical Inspection, expenditure 1919-1920 under Immigration and Colonization, $-10,000, $50,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is an increase of $20,000. Will the minister kindly explain what the increase is for, and at the same time inform the committee whether any .inspection takes place on the other side of the ocean before the immigrants board the vessel?


Newton Wesley Rowell: According to my information the increase is not so great as this item would indicate. It is difficult to say in connection with an item which has' been taken out of the Estimates voted in a lump sum in another department. My own impression is that the actual increase is not nearly so substantial as these figures would indicate. There is a real increase, however, and that springs from an augmentation of the salaries of a certain number of the medical officers. It has been imperatively necessary to provide certain increases in order to retain the medical officers in the immigration service; and also to provide for the appointment of additional part-time officers who, it is believed, will be required during the immigration season. If they are not required the money will not be expended for this purpose. The provision is being made, however, in case there
should be a substantial number of immigrants come to Canada this year.


John Howard Sinclair: When
this service is transferred to the Department of Health will there still be medical men employed in the Immigration Department?
[DOT] *


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, but there is a perfect co-operation between the two departments. The Department of Health does all the medical examination; the Department of Immigration has no medical officers at all. We examine and report the physical and mental condition of the immigrants to the immigration officials with whom the decision as to deportation or refusal to land rests.


James Alexander Robb: The objection raised to the item No. 63 would also apply to this item. It might be made plainer if the words, "Expenditure, 1919-20 Immigration and Colonization" were placed in brackets.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite willing to
adopt my hon. friend's suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Research-maintenance, replacements, supplies and assistance for a research laboratory, $10,000.
John Howard Sinclair: Has this any relation to the work of the Bureau of Research?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; it deals with a wholly different subject. This is intended to be the initiation of a research laboratory under the Department of Health, which is one of the things most urgently needed in Canada. At the present time we have no adequate provision for this class of work. Take the situation which at present exists: we had throughout Canada during the past six or eight months what was commonly designated as sleeping sickness, but which was not sleeping sickness. Medical men at present do not know the origin of this disease, its method of propagation or its cure, but we do know that it exists, and we know its fatal consequences. We have had the most careful investigations of these cases made by the most skilled medical men, but we have not got a laboratory to-day under the control of the department in which we can follow up these investigations. I hope that we may have established in this capital city a medical research laboratory which will be a credit to the Dominion of Canada, and will encourage scientific

research in those branches so vital to human progress and human welfare. This vote is merely to make possible the initiation of the work.
Venereal Diseases, $200,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: We need a little explanation of this item.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This is to provide for cooperation with the provinces in carrying on a campaign against venereal diseases. We have worked out an arrangement with all the provinces for a united compaign. I may say that one of the best things we have done under the Act providing for the creation of a Department of Health, has been the appointment, of the Dominion Council of Health. The Council consists off the chief executive officers of Health of each of the provinces, plus five others' representing the various civilian, activities in the country, and is presided over by the Deputy Minister of Health as chairman. In consultation with the representatives of the provinces we have worked out an arrangement whereby the provinces undertake to carry out an active compaign against venereal diseases on lines, which have been agreed upon as the result of a consultation of the officers of the department and the chief medical officers of the provinces at the Dominion Council of Health. The provinces agree to put up dollar for dollar in connection with this compaign, and I laid on the table of the House the other day the Order in Council which indicated the distribution of the grant last year. It is on the basis of population, and all the provinces have joined in - the agreement which has been .made for carrying on this united Compaign. The late Si-r William Osier has stated-perhaps in as terse and forcible language as could be expressed-that gonorrhoea is the sterilizer of the race, while syphilis is the killer. These facts in possession of the Department of Health indicate that this campaign is needed in Canada as similar campaigns are needed elsewhere.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Have all the provinces
availed themselves of the amount that would come to them out of the vote last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All of the provinces have availed themselves of it with the exception of the province of Prince Edward Island. Under the agreement only half the amount is advanced on the commencement of the work. Not until six months have expired and the provinces give evidence that they

are carrying on the campaign will they be entitled to the second advance.
Doan of $2'5,00-0',00-0 to Provincial Governments, etc., (re-vote), $13,310,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: So far as I am concerned I have no objection to this item, but I understood the minister to make a proposal a few minutes ago that his vote of $25,000,000 should now carry because it had been discussed by the committee and some one on this side of the House raised objection.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The objection was in the form of a suggestion that we should finish the Department of Health Estimates first.


James Alexander Robb: It is not the policy to exceed this $25,000,000?


Georges Henri Boivin: The item is a re-vote
of $13,310,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The $25,000,000 was
voted last year, but the full amount has not been advanced. If we did not re-vote the balance it would permit the provinves which took advantage last year to get the full benefit and the others would get nothing more.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the money not taken up by any province be advanced to the other provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Each province is entitled to its share and no more.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that one
or two provinces have refused to take advantage of this loan?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Alberta is the only one
which so far has not taken advantage of it.	.


Mr. CANNON:: Is the money simply
given to the province and distributed as the province sees fit, or have the municipalities anything to do with the scheme?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: The grant would lapse, it would not go to the credit of any other province.
To provide for an increase in the salary of the Director-General of Public Health, from the 1st of April, 1919, $1,0'00.


James Alexander Robb: Before this item is considered I would suggest that, inasmuch as item 61, Adulteration of Food, was amended during my temporary absence and does not now apply to the Acts respecting feeding stuffs and fertilizers, the minister might very properly reduce the amount of that item.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would be very glad if I could accommodate my hon. friend, but almost all of the expenditure has been under the Adulteration of Food Acts. Inspectors have been appointed under those Acts, and in addition to their duties they have assisted in the enforcement of the provisions of the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act and the Act respecting fertilizers. That is the reason that the administration of those Acts was transferred to the Department of Health. They are now transferred to the Department of Agriculture on the understanding that that department has the staff to. enforce them without adding to the public expense. It does not reduce the number of employees required in this department. These employees, however, will have important additional duties this year in connection with the enforcement of the Proprietary and Patent Medicines Act and the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does the item we have now reached provide for an increase in salary?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Last year, as hon. mein-bes will recall, all deputy ministers and all other officials who held the rank of deputy minister had their salaries increased from $5,000 to $6,000, with the exception of the Director General of Medical Services. He has served the country for some 54 years and is retiring very shortly. We thought it but right-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Dr. Montizambert?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. We thought it but right that he should be put on the same basis as all other public servants who held the same position last year.
Progress reported.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, June 15, 1920.